See also: IRC log
<fsasaki> waiting for people to come
<DomJones> Scribe: DomJones
Felix: Discussing presentation to HTML WG, Frederick showed example use-case in OKAPI. Large group, many issues, individual feedback is more likely from HTML WG.
Felix: Dave, Dom, Leroy have to leave at 1 which topics do we need them for. Morning agenda (until 13.00) is fine, XLIFF discussion will be held at 3pm. Implementors slot is from 2-3pm.
… Starting goToMeeting
Naoto and Tadej join us on the goToMeeting.
… We just had a meeting with HTML group, no specific outcome but connection made between the WG. 1st topic is ITS tool discussion.
Dave Lewis: Background to this - came from MT confidence score generalised out to other data cats. Solution applies to any data cat. Some cat's will contain confidence, quality, disambig which may be different for every element / span. Most likely that they use one value for tool information. Large overhead for replication. Main example was proposal for MT confidence score.
… You may have default done with one tool other certain sections done with other tool. Global rules therefore cannot be used. We need with a seperate data cat or a certain mechanism. Suggestion to use trick used for standoff markup, not a data category, contains tool information referencing part of that tool element aligned to data category.
… Allows element referencing across a document.
… Could be over-written by element further on in document.
Dave Lewis: Yves had proposed some text but in order to take furthur we needed to look at its application to other data cats. I have looked at the ITS tool text and give examples on current proposal for relevent data cats.
… have done this for MT confidence and Text A Annotation. If we use this mechanism as a general purpose mechanism which seems to work fairly well.
… you end up with data cats which only have a local attribute (such as MT score) this combined with top level references for tool informaiton.
… looking at definition of text A annotation you end up with nearly the exact same pattern.
… have received comments back from Marcis on MT confidence score.
David F: Tools should be made mandatory on more data categories. Loc Qual Score (Precis) should be a candidate for mandatory application of this. The same for Text A Annotation.
David Lewis: Have reduced it right down to local selectors, not applicable to global.
Felix: In your presentation you state "not define external format" this is not clear in the draft. You just have a URI.
Dave Lewis: We're probably a bit too generalised when we talk of having a score for Text A Annotation.This could have been used for Disambig, Terminology, Domain. The way we phrase that allows several different data categories where the score is not different from the process it relates to.
… Could have general purpose score attribute.
… MT confidence score, disambig, domain, Terminology. Would this need to be more open ended?
… feedback from Tadej
Tadej: One thing which would be good to have is relation of each instance to a score of the data category it relates to. You can parse up the tree and see which data cats are produced by which tool. Same text by terminology tools and Text A tools at the same time. So could we direct tool-info at every node?
Dave Lewis: That is what we were trying to avoid with tool-info with a mechanism for global declaration. Which ITS data category annotations it applies to.
<fsasaki> its:toolsRef="MTConfidence|file:///tools.xml#T1 Disambiguation|file:///tools.xml#T2"
… For the element you are applying the declaration to you are saying all of the data categories in that element were generated by a specific tool. Different disambig / tools need to be applied element by element. Worst case scenerio is every element being done by a different tool but we dont think this is a common situation.
Felix: The example pasted above, is this what you mean?
<fsasaki> also, tadej, is that the functionality you need?
Dave Lewis: Yes, gives flexibility for possible declaration of every markup. I was interested to hear the feedback from others as to whether we need different annotations for text annotations, domain and terminology.
Marcis: If you dont look-up all instances in a term base, but use extraction method for term-candidates you have the confidence. Further you can fine-tune processes based on the confidence.
… allows users to decide precision and recall which allows fine tuning of systems.
<tadej> fsasaki: this is expressive enough, but may be verbose for content which was annotated for multiple data categories - it boils down how easy it is to relate every its-ta-confidence instance to the tool it was produced by, where there are many tools in the mix
Dave Lewis: Had been starting to think about this for demo systems. Enricher run over text inserts alot of annotation which may well result in false+
… How much do we know about the processes applied to annotations?
… thresholds need to be added.
tadej: One solution to avoid verbosity is annotation of the tool at the top-level of the document. Produce one annotation on the root applied to all elements below.
Dave Lewis: ITS tool essential does that but data category is bound to particular tool. Mark-up addresses that, we're taking that a step forward to text analysis annotation. Is this "at risk"?
Felix: No, "at risks" means that feature is clearly defined. To do that we have only three weeks left.
Dave Lewis: If we happy with how we operate ITS-tools we need to look at how we insert these data cats for Text A Confidence score and for MT confidence. 1-2-1 matching to data categories. For complicated like disambig are there more than one confidence score depending on entity, lexical mapping, etc. Do we need to be more fine grained in the confidence score there?
… There is the overview, questions on wording etc, my feelings are that it seems to work on those data categories and the knock on effect of combining confidence scores into one data cat.
… Im looking for people interested to give us feedback now. Im happy to continue to editing these but looking for feedback from Marcis, Tadej, David F, Ankit.
Felix: 3 weeks is tight. Lots of test suite work needed in this period. Suggest all those interested in this to look into this today (2nd Nov). We will discuss again on Monday and try to fix it completely so the other timeline is not effected. If something comes up on Monday we have another week but we need feedback by Monday on this.
<fsasaki> tadej, it seems we lost you on gotomeeting
Dave Lewis: Suggestion has a few typos etc, can people look at that. Example annotation provided, some what editorial but we have some examples as to how it works with different data categories.
<tadej> fsasaki: reconnecting - the audio suddenly went silent.
felix: This has an impact on test-cases, needs to be in the test suite.
<fsasaki> tadej, would that be a mandatory for text analytics? asking also because of test suite etc.
David L: We have it as a general mechanism would not make sense with a number of other categories.
David F: Unless I know the value / profile of the score it provides nothing.
Felix: Are there tools which produce this score out of human annotation.
… where scores are provided based on reviewing but a human.
<tadej> fsasaki: what exactly are you referring to as mandatory? the confidence score mechanism, or the tool reference mechanism?
David F: Score is an orthogonal feature.
felix: For MT we have MT-confidence, what other data categories tool would produce that?
<fsasaki> tadej, I meant whether the tool mechanism should be mandataory for implementors of text analysis annotation
Pedro: Any LSP would produce score for themselves. In scenerios client request quality audit on content we produce or by 3rd party. Important point - before quality audit you set the methodology otherwise the audit is not valid at all.
<fsasaki> that is, for implementors of a score for text analytics
Pedro: different LSPs have different metrics based on revision, type of errors, severity and generates a score.
David F: Without a methodology you cannot produce score. May be better to call is "quality calculation score" etc.
Felix: Precis is currently at risk without this methodology.
Tadej: Should this be mandatory? I think that without knowing what produced the output it is hard to say anything about the score. Which scores are comparable is hard to identify.
Dave L: We were talking about having a url that points to the info, its a url of an element within that process info element. The q: we refer to this process info element without stating what the schema is but we state what the element is. Difference is having a url that points to anything vs. not defining the schema. In XML its fine can point to external or internal element. But in HTML we need to specify how the url references a url in that script.
Felix: You could have a seperate script element for each standoff item.
… pitty Yves cannot be on the phone. He has raised concerns: anything possible, tool with element it in, or define a schema. There is a drawback that you restrict people to xml processing, what about the case of RDF or audio. Does everyone who needs the element need XML?
Pedro: This can be used by a client where a ref is used Score is normally a relative value. You say if the threshold is X and whether the content can be part of the profile ref.
Dave L: SMT gives the case where you are indexing the training data to diff MT engines. No way to classify that we understand at the moment. You may end up defining a MT by a description of the MT egine.
Pedro: Not many impls as its hard to get that score automatically.
Dave L: Self-generating score only used for comparison between the same engines.
<fsasaki> "Disambiguation|file:///tools.xml#T2" > "Disambiguation|http://enrycher.com/v1.2/language-en"
Felix: Paste proposal into chat, from Yves, this URI itself is just a URI, no further information, self-contained in the URL. This tool is X, in Lang Y, in the URL where each tool can create the tool itself. But in a large document this is the list of annotation with URI = tool1, URI = tool2. Dont restrict the URI being retrieved and XML removes this restriction.
Dave Lewis: Naoto has interest in this.
… any other comments else I'll take this on board, update text, get feedback from Tadej and Yves. Try to update and send off today (2nd Nov).
Tadej: I like felix's suggestion on URI encoding. All people will not be able to encode in a common format but good to provide best-practices. I will send Dave L some comments.
… raise another point: In Dave's proposal mechanism for Text A Annotation can only be applied to ITS data cats and not non-ITS data cats. Is this something we would like to open up?
Dave L: Not sure on that wording, really a scoping thing. Could be applied to meta-tags in HTML but this stretches scope of Impl. Suggest we delete that. Unless others have a specific use-case.
Tadej: When not used on ITS elements meaning is undefined.
Dave L: Can you email me that and I'll add it to the document.
David F: 2mins. I need to fix logistics for XLIFF meeting. Does everyone want to use it or is it a breakout?
Felix. Timing it needs to be 3pm.
… 3-4pm xliff mapping meeting
… may make sense to have everyone here to review action items. Move this to 4pm.
… updated agenda http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/LyonNov2012
… Tadej / Noato will you join us this afternoon?
… Tadej no.
Felix: Propose we adjourn at 3pm and the XLIFF meeting can follow.
<fsasaki> self-introduction of participants
<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2012OctDec/0022.html
<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2012OctDec/0022.html
Felix: HTML session introduced MLW-LT group. Would be good to get feedback on a number of issues. Info share meeting with L10n w3c group. 2 items are relevant for you. Directionality and ruby information.
… values are given for directionality and ruby information.
… what is here is from the ITS 1.0 spec without changing anything.
… Times have changed for directionality there are new attributes, Ruby has a different ruby model than XHTML. So how do we proceed?
… We are aiming to make people aware of what is possible for directionality and ruby. Would be great to get your feedback. We refer to what is being done for these 2 data cat in HTML5.
… For those using XML based examples the best thing would be for them to use the HTML namespace. However if not possible these elements could be defined in the ITS namespace.
… 1 other question: There is no rendering or processing here involved which is hard for testing relating activities. Should we just refer to these other places, would be good to get your feedback.
r12a: Do we need to maintain backwards compat with ITS1.0.
Felix: Its not straightforward, a break may make sense. Not sure it would break anything in content or applications. If we need to break this backward compatibility we need to discuss this in the group.
<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#directionality-definition (sec 6.5.1)
r12a: ITS describes concepts that need to be supported for internationalisation. Key thing: Express the concepts that need to be supported in the markup. One thing you missed at the HTML5 WG on bi-di, which you will not have heard.
… We started describing how to use HTML5 for bi-di. bdi element and "auto" value ??
… they isolate certain text for dbi where you have text in HTML and it interferes with stuff around it. Not only are problems with dropping text into HTML but for bdi in general. Direction can be assigned to text but can also isolate that text in plaintext. People are encouraged to use those control codes as opposed to existing methods.
… The CSS working group has retrofitted those ideas into the CSS model. Looking for HTML WG to add two extra values to the DIR attribute. Isolation is really important in bdi. Dir = LTR / RTL is to be avoided in replacement of new bdi attributes.
… proposed extension to HTML that would be retrofitted into HTML5 during the CR phase (2014). Major shift, all fluid, many questions remain.
Felix: Could we point to the HTML5 spec for directionality.
r12a: May not yet be in HTML5 by the time ITS2.0 is published.
Fantasai: Seems you have some values not already in HTML5. Given this it makes sense to add values here, not worrying about what HTML5 is doing. I dont think its a concern to sync this feature with HTML5.
r12a: May be a problem as ITS 2.0 is looking to inform on how bdi is used in HTML5.
Jirka: I think its no problem as we are providing mapping from HTML model to our model. So its not too much of a problem to add two new additional values to ITS.
… we can just extend our mapping from HTML5
Felix: People involved in XLIFF may have more information. At LocWorld support of bi-direct support in XLIFF was discussed. We are trying to copy the HTML5 model. That may be one area where they may want more than guidance. They are near feature freeze, David can you comment?
David F: Bi-direction support was added to draft. Feature freeze informally before christmas / mid-january. Not trying to mimic HTML. In XLIFF 1.2 unicode control chars were being used. No Auto value in current draft, only LTR, RTL on structured or inline elements.
… With have (in XLIFF) structural and in-line, not global and local. They are not overlapping.
… current draft can be influenced. If this should be changed it could. ITS to XLIFF mapping call today.
… important as its a major release, breaks backwards compat, future releases (minor) will not change back-wards.
… No ness about attributes it would be about processing requirements. Very little processing req. If you have input for proc req then its the right time to influence the XLIFF group.
r12a: Likely to change. We have documentation on bdi. Inline took line with minimum markup. New docs influence the way people write bdi. Every word that changes is surrounded with markup. Its a shift from previous approach.
David F: Even things which would be already considered very local in XML are very structured in XLIFF.
Felix: Should we continue this now or table for 3pm? One aspect to what Richard said from the beginning. ITS document provides to people the right thing to do, therefore XLIFF people could be directed to this.
r12a: isolate and automatically guess / assign directionality are given by bdi. You can start a span of plaintext by LTR or RTL.
David F: Is the auto approach a good idea to have in localisation.
Norbert: There is an overlap between your work and my work. There is aneed from ITS to work with Reg Exp with JavaScript. Are there other req where you define things that would be interpreted in Javascript.
norbert: reg exp where ITS defines req exps interpreted by Javascript. WE have to improve unicode support in reg exp so your functionality would work. Are there other features of ITS that need support in Javascript.
… you may be relying on other features which is not yet supported.
… if nothing comes to mind right now we are also looking for future input.
Felix: This is the main case where this may be used in Javascript. I dont see it so much in other data cats where this may be applied.
<fantasai> RRSAgent: pointer
Felix: ITS 2.0 moves to LC at end of Nov. I will send this to you guys for review as to whether you think this is the right way to be phrased. I need to talk to W3C about back-wards compat with Directionality and Ruby. ITN group is busy but a heads-up another call will be coming in Nov. We'll take it from there.
r12a: What does MLW-LT think about bdi and ruby / directionality.
Jirka: Im worried that the HTML spec was changed recently and this has not been integrated into the spec yet. How to handle more complex cases in Ruby etc. We should use same mark-up on ruby as taken by the HTML but do we have time.
r12a: Ruby supoprt in 5.0 HTML, and isolation support. THe problem is that 5.0 wont be finished before your spec if finished.
Jirka: As long as ruby is stable in HTML 5.0 but I'm not sure on this.
David F: Allowed to use normative references, are they in the right state?
felix: We need to develop our testing and be part of our LC draft. This doc provides guidance to do the right thing, rather than having a normative definition.
David F: Data cats from 1.2 have moved from 1.0. If the category is now in HTML would the right thing to say its no longer in our scope as its in the HTML WG scope.
Felix: We still need to give guidance, albeit non normative
Jirka: Currently we try to copy what HTML is doing. What was in ITS 1.0 we used XHTML base elements which were dropped. Would be strange to add ruby in 2.0 to find it was later added to HTML.
r12a: Brainstorming… In data cat world generic terms can be described in prose. What currently being done in HTML5 in terms of markup. Enables test in CR based on current HTML5 spec.
felix: Ruby tests are rendering based. We currently have no browser / render based impls which means group cannot provide the tests. People who provide normative usage are not in this room. We need to agree upon this in the WG. We cannot get from this group a normative and testable definition.
r12a: So this info should be in the spec but non normative.
felix: Yes, this also gives us more time. For example Nov 2013.
r12a: What would you say in this non-normative text.
felix: Currently state nothing but that this will be back-filled in final draft. Provide placeholder for text and move forward after LC. We could then work together to fill in spec.
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
dom: we have the opportunity to
write what is happening next year
... if we provide it non-normatively now
david: non-normative means that you don't use the words MUST, SHOULD etc. and you don't need to do tests
richard: an application does not
need to test things for conformance
... you could not guarentee that XLIFF will have "placeholders"
for bidi stuff
<DomJones> scribe: DomJones
felix: Group based on EC funding and therefore time limited. time extension are not a possibility which gives us a strict timeline on this.
… any other thoughts from those here?
Fantasai: Asks for clarification, richard said your providing recommendations on how mark-up should be applied to content.
felix: these recomendations are created based on inputs from ITN working group. So others can look at how directionality / ruby works.
… We're looking at how it works in HTML, guidance, not a normative feature. Not replicating what is done normatively in the HTML spec.
Fantasai: Looking at how to take HTML standards for localisation and applies to other pieces of data. Would not suggest using approach taken in HTML. 2 things: XHTML model and current HTML model and not sure how it will look in future models.
felix: Its a moving target
Fantasai: Should have one attribute for directionality. Not the same as replacing with bits of HTML5.
felix: placeholder is a good agreement.
Jirka: Good to represent all values in directionality.
Felix: Who would test this normative features? Hoping we dont define normatively as there are no test cases.
David F: Normative should be tabled for 2.5 or 2.1 ITS.
… they are unstable elsewhere so what can we actually do?
Fantasai: XML dir attribute with clear semantics. Have all RTL, LTR, etc, all applied to one attribute. As opposed to multiple attributes. Which maps to bdi algorithm using X and Y.
Felix: We can create such guidance. Is there someone from the LTN group who would like to help us with this?
Fantasai: Aharon Lanin from google would be a good person for this
Felix: And if he is not avliable?
r12a: Email us and we'll help you with this.
felix: Normative and non-normative (guidance) are our options.
r12a: From ITS conception we need to specify what information is needed anywhere to support ruby and directionality. Direction, isolate, RTL etc. This was applied in a number of formats, DocBook etc. What I think Im hearing is we could do this generic stuff but to get through CR phase you need to test these things. If you cant map this, you can't test.
Felix: We have three weeks. Whether testable or not. Three weeks to stable draft. As soon as its normative deadline is three weeks away.
Jirka: Maybe go too deep into functionality.
Felix: If it is normative it is not done. You need to assure rendering, impl.
Jirka: Displaying, rendering is a problem for styling.
Felix: Who here is implementing Directionality and Ruby? Currently there are no testing provided for this. If its normative you need an assertion that it is tested.
Jirka: Different case as it was in ITS 1.0, if you drop it you miss backward compatability.
Fantasai: Are you defining technology or a spec for others or guidance for others to define technology.
Felix: Except for Ruby and
Directionality technology. Hence proposing drop these.
... There are features we used to test Ruby and Directionality
in 1.0 which use XPATH not used in HTML.
Norbert: Why are we even talking about these if they are not being used.
r12a: Important for spec but not
being implemented.
... I would strongly support it being non-normative rather than
not having it there. Issue about stability as opposed to
whether it is need it or not.
Felix: Would it work if I re-draft current sections, send them to you, with placeholders you can see and whether it makes sense for LC draft? Would that be ok? At the actually LC we have another opportunity to update.
<scribe> ACTION: on felix to draft the ruby and directionality sections See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-irc#T11-14-29 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users>.
<scribe> ACTION: on fsasaki to draft the ruby and directionality sections See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-irc#T11-14-29 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users>.
action on felix to draft the ruby and directionality sections See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-irc#T11-14-29
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users>.
<scribe> ACTION: on felix2 to draft the ruby and directionality sections See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-irc#T11-14-29 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users>.
<mhellwig> scribe: mhellwig
fsasaki reviewing agenda
yves: what do we return the lowercase value or the original value?
<scribe> ACTION: pablo to talk to Lucy about casing issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, ambiguous username (more than one match) - pablo
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. pnietoca, pbada)
<scribe> ACTION: paolo to discuss casing issue with Lucy Software [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find paolo. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users>.
<pnietoca> ACTION: pnietoca to discuss casing issue with Lucy Software [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-273 - Discuss casing issue with Lucy Software [on Pablo Nieto Caride - due 2012-11-09].
fsasaki: domain pointers can have v. long XPATH expressions. Absolute location paths would make it shorter.
jirka: write location path for XPATH. Allow absolute and relative location paths. fsasaki agrees jirka: we should rewrite the specification completely. action: fsasaki to edit specification to resolve location path issue
Marcis: to analyse for terms, you have to break down the document
... you need to do the analysis several times, for different domains
... unguided term annotation: annotations are made with confidence scores
... a second way is to recognise terms in term base and annotate. there you don't have confidence. either you have the term in your term or you don't
... question arises: how do we add tool info?
... and another question for group: what happens when external rules are not available?
fsasaki: we have linked global rules. the conformance section we say that systems must process these rules
dave: we haven't defined what happens if it breaks down. we suppose a 'best effort basis'
Marcis: translate data category defines what should be analysed. This does not exist for other data categories.
... do we need a definition?
dave: there isn't a definition. it hasn't come up. [in case of annotations] you just do it for the whole document.
... no new mechanism is needed. maybe we need a discussion about this
Marcis: for translation it's more critical. annotation you add, you don't replace anything
dave: you could have false positives and then there's cost for going through and cross these false positives out. it will just raise cost
Marcis: does global override local?
dave: yes
Marcis: terminology is not to be inheritable, but what about this case [discusses example in his notes]
fsasaki: we are looking at an example with nested elements around which there is a term annotation around it
... need additional item information for each element.
Marcis: would it be the same in disambig?
fsasaki: yes, disambig is not inherited
fsasaki: [to tadej] would enrycher support nested elements
tadej: it's possible, i don't see why it wouldn't be. we're safe here.
Marcis: but you cannot do it locally?
tadej, fsasaki: yes you can
Marcis: what about overlapping annotations
fsasaki: won't solve
Marcis: also agent and tool information. will not go into detail at this point
... there are a lot of very finegrained usages in agent provenance
dave: we now have a standoff mechanism, so does it makes sense to have a tool which says provenance type = ???
... which would make the metadata definition easier
... so i tihnk it's a good idea to implement a standoff mechanism
action: dave to write an email to fsasaki who will integrate this into the spec
action: fsasaki to integrate dave's email about standoff mechanism for provenance into spec
<fsasaki> Marcis: language will fall back to language "english" as a fallback
<fsasaki> .. in MT it is important that you know to which language you are translating
<fsasaki> Ankit: difference between language is not ideal
<fsasaki> David: not an issue of ITS
<fsasaki> Marcis: sure, just a comment
<fsasaki> David: any industry implementation does mapping anyway
<fsasaki> .. mappings are possible, e.g. to map any English into your English
<fsasaki> Marcis: yes, like reading the 1st two characters
<fsasaki> David: yes
fsasaki: we need to do some event planning fsasaki shows dates and events listed in excel document fsasaki: F2F in January, workshop in Rome [March] pedro: going to Gala. fsasaki: next up F2F in april. tadej, is that good for you? everybody, pleaes check your calender tadej: I checked with hotel, availability end of april and a few times beginning of May ... May better to climb ...?? fsasaki: would 7th and 8th of May [2013] work? agreement from group ... great. let's have the F2F meeting then. ... what about locworld. anybody going? dfilip: we are thinking about FEISGILTT in London as we had good attraction and follow-up in Seattle so London should work well. pedro: will probably go and Lucy Software will also be there (at locworld) ... I think we should submit as much as we can. not just be there dfilip: we may have entry to the main programme through feisgiltt. pedro: most important that we showcases are already running, we have to show them fsasaki: any other events to showcase pedro: I propose an F2F in Madrid in July ... I'll check if the university is available fsasaki: any other events you may present mhellwig: DrupalCon at the end of March fsasaki: [to dave] can you present at XML prague? dave: ??? dave: also, world wide web conference. submission deadline soon. 13th-17th May 2013 ankit: September 2013 I'll go to MT summit user track dfilip: LRC conference. Around 20th of september 2013 fsasaki: time to close. anything else? when is the drupalcon mhellwig: there's two. we'll go to one at least fsasaki: where should the final event be? jirka: when is it supposed to be. Oct, Nov, Dec 2013? fsasaki: yes around there, depending of location availability etc. it's supposed to be our largest workshow. We have a lot of implementations already, so the critical one will be Rome.
<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03
<fsasaki> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open
<fsasaki> close action-231
<trackbot> ACTION-231 Create tests for its:param closed
<fsasaki> close action-255
<trackbot> ACTION-255 Determine and correct wording for ISSUE-34 closed
<fsasaki> close action-258
<trackbot> ACTION-258 Ask XLIFF TC what best practice of mapping ITS into a namespace in XLIFF closed
<fsasaki> action-268: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-tests/2012Nov/0000.html
<trackbot> ACTION-268 Make sure that schedule for test suite and schema update discussed at http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-mlw-lt-irc#T11-27-30 is taken into account notes added
<fsasaki> close action-268
<trackbot> ACTION-268 Make sure that schedule for test suite and schema update discussed at http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-mlw-lt-irc#T11-27-30 is taken into account closed
<fsasaki> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20121105T15
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to send info about call time [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-274 - Send info about call time [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-11-09].
<fsasaki> action-270: done via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0009.html
<trackbot> ACTION-270 Ask phil and des and arle about need and implementation committment for localization precis during next call notes added
<fsasaki> close action-270
<trackbot> ACTION-270 Ask phil and des and arle about need and implementation committment for localization precis during next call closed
<fsasaki> action-271: dublicate of action-273
<trackbot> ACTION-271 Add a step regarding the lowercasing of the domain data category notes added
<fsasaki> close action-271
<trackbot> ACTION-271 Add a step regarding the lowercasing of the domain data category closed
<fsasaki> close issue-52
<trackbot> ISSUE-52 Domain in HTML5 closed
<fsasaki> "[Ed. note: Following schema example has to updated once we have final XSD schema for ITS 2.0]" - drop example and note
<fsasaki> "[Ed. note: All selector related definitions has to be update to reflect queryLanguage]" - some data category definitions refer to XPath expressions; need to generalize that to refer to "relative or absolute selector"
<fsasaki> "[Ed. note: Need to reevaluate above statement related to ODF.]" - remove paragraph above the note, that's it
<fsasaki> "The entity type follows inheritance rules." - delete the sentence? came back to Tadej
<fsasaki> "[Ed. note: Below note is taken from the quality issue data category. ..." - can be deleted
<fsasaki> "[Ed. note: Should locQualityIssues also be defined for global rules? It seems not to be specific to local.]" - not decided yet
<fsasaki> yves: having a generic container that is nice
<fsasaki> ACTION: yves to summarized "one container name" proposal again [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-275 - Summarized "one container name" proposal again [on Yves Savourel - due 2012-11-09].
<fsasaki> "[Ed. note: Missing the local mtconfidencescore attribute.]" - to be done after or during tool definition update
<dF> Scribe: Milan
<dF> Chair: dF
Richard and Koji are with us, for bidi and Ruby to discuss
<Yves_> see also section on bidid in draft of XLIFF 2.0 https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/xliff/trunk/xliff-20/xliff-core.pdf
Most of implementations are in XLIFF 1.2, version 2.0 is currently under construction
Mappings are similar (structurally)
Let's start with Directionality (then Ruby)
dF: Inline doesn't feature to
cover those
... XLIFF proposal for directionality in 2.0
Yves_: Any inline element (including <mrk>) has attribute for directionality
<Yves_> See Bidi section here: https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/xliff/trunk/xliff-20/xliff-core.pdf
dF: Masking vs. <mrk> - explaining difference
r12a: HTML5 includes bdi
attribute provides isolation mechanism
... HTML WG to provide a new value (Auto), decided
directionality based on first strong character
<dF> https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/xliff/trunk/xliff-20/xliff-core.pdf
<scribe> ACTION: dF to send XLIFF 2.0 spec to Richard [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-276 - Send XLIFF 2.0 spec to Richard [on David Filip - due 2012-11-09].
dF: There was never mechanicsm
like Ruby in XLIFF
... can be provided as a context
... fs can help(?)
... XLIFF is a transport format, not resolved displaying
issues. Depends on tools how the content is displayed
Continuing the XLIFF Maping Table (r12a and Koji left)
Translation Agent Provenance skipped, not Dave
Text Analysis Annotation skipped
Target Pointer drives an extraction, there is nothing to represent
Id Value as a resname in 1.2, no equivalent in 2.0
dF: Yves to propose rename on
unit in XLIFF 2.0
... it doesn't have any sense to have ID value for inlines
(remove questionmarks)
Preserve Space solved at segment level (xml:space) but not for inline
dF: could be used in sub-flow
Localization Quality Issue, hold till call with XLIFF committee at Nov 6th
Localization Quality Précis
dF: We need a mechanism to
reference an Agent
... who provided quality check
MT Confidence
Allowed Characters
dF: Do we need it for inline?
Yves_: Yes, example might be Login name restriction
Storage Size, issue only in 2.0
dF: push harder to have
<mrk> extensible
... We stabilized what was possible
<scribe> ACTION: dF To color-code cells in Mappings table dependent on unstable ITS categories or in XLIFF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-277 - Color-code cells in Mappings table dependent on unstable ITS categories or in XLIFF [on David Filip - due 2012-11-09].