Felix wants us to document high level cases before Rome

testsuite update

DaveL asks Leroy for updates since Monday meeting

Leroy: ? is committing 4 data categories, we're at 59%, up from 50%

<daveL> http://tinyurl.com/its20-testsuite-dashboard

need all to provide updates, esp. those who haven't got their 80%, esp. UL and Shawn

Tadej says he's renamed several attributes, will break tests. Wants feedback

Use case document for Rome

mail Don sent out this morning about M4 and M5. This may take down percentage even more.

<daveL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0024.html

involves branching between conformance testing vs showing community that we have something useful (in Rome)

Rome demos will not really affect percentages of what is completed to meeting milestones

concern is that if we ask for metadata, while we can demo that we can open and read files, things may not be completely there

demos may show things that are not complete test cases

for the EU project, we'll also have a review in Rome, and we need to meet their milestones

the w3c milestones give us a bit more time

overall test delays need to be reported to Felix so that some deadlines can be adjusted (within limits)

<daveL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0019.html

we need to understand that outreach effort (in Rome) is to demo useful work, vs. meeting EU and w3c deadlines/milestones

<daveL> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary

Felix recommends that we update the high level wiki page to align with what the current state of ITS2 is

and then use part of this as a model (before Rome).

Needed for EU but also good for public (at Rome).

This needs to match with posters (for which deadline is 15 Feb).

scribe: for Rome.

Felix is suggesting updating the high level summary by 18 February

Christian: Felix also brought to the table the suggestion that in the main specifications we want to refer to the use cases.

For this we need to stabilize URIs. This can be done by publishing a recommendation.

DaveL says we can do this. Take same approach we did before.

DaveL says the WG did this for the requirements document

DaveL asks whether anyone has any objections to use the simple MT cases?

DaveL then says we'd need to go through these to compare with how the cases match the text.

chriLi offers to take over this task if the partners have done the update a couple of days before the 18th

chriLi says to meet this deadline we need input from partners 3 days earlier.

chriLi points out that 18 Feb is needed publication date

we ask people to provide by 15 Feb (same day as posters) to update the high level summary page

scribe: to enable the result to be publishable by 18 Feb.

<daveL> action; dlewis6 to confirm dates for use case document publishing

<daveL> ACTION: dlewis6 to confirm dates for use case document publishing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/06-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-443 - Confirm dates for use case document publishing [on David Lewis - due 2013-02-13].

<scribe> agenda: issue 63

conformance type in LQI

<daveL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Feb/0017.html

Phip has indicated that his company (DI) is interested in consuming this, and has another company that will provide these.

Phil (not Phip)...

<daveL> topic; Issue 75, clarification of applicability of domain mapping to a multidomain Post from christian

<daveL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Feb/0018.html

also, point from pablo on referencing wiki material http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Feb/0020.html

<daveL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Feb/0020.html

chriLi and DaveL asking whether anyone has any objections

else will be edited into specs

scribe: will be done through last call tracking page, by co-chairs (on basis of chriLi's text)

Pablo points out that text is fine, but link will change (note taken: by DaveL). Felix will arrange to copy into persistent URL.

regex definition issue-67 acton for Shaun

Shaun https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/385

<Yves_> There is some small fixes to work out

<Yves_> (sorry ca't talk)

<Yves_> mostly the regex work and we just need a few adjustements

<daveL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0014.html

<Yves_> yes

<daveL> topic; terminology and disambiguation issue-68 action for Tadej

Tadej https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/435

Tadej outlines discussion to merge the two (terminology and disabig).

In the end, no merge but

disabiguation is simplified

<scribe> dropped graularity

<tadej> https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/pull/5

renamed to text analysis (short version: Tan) instead of disabiguation

<tadej> https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/pull/5/files

this involves not too much work for implementors, mainly renaming

<Marcis> Tadej, in the e-mail you sent there is an attachment that says: "text-analysis-annotation" - should the annotation be dropped?! I agree to Yves who said that annotation mighy be redundant

also dropping disambigClassRef

no changes for terminology, so still backwards compatible.

DaveL asks for comments from others involved

Marcis says, if I understand correctly, no change to terminology

it is important to drop the -annotation suffix.

Tadej says he'll correct examples

<joerg> Does this then resolve issue-68?

Marcis says, as it now stands, issue 68 is resolved

chriLi says the comment of Marcis is very relevalant.

chriLi asks whether the data cat terminology should be deprecated

<Marcis> Correction - I asked whether the issue would be resolved by the changes or not?!

sorry, Marcis, thanks for correction.

<joerg> Why should terminology being deprecated? We still have different use cases.

Marcis says that as it now stands, the text-analysis data category does not cover all that the terminology category currently covers.

chriLi says he, Tadej and Marcis volunteered to see if they could come up with an "enhanced" text-analysis category that allow coverage for "term"

to subsume all the missing items from terminology

<tadej> its:term=yes -> its:tanClassRef="nerd:Object"

<Yves_> local term='no' can be used to override a global rule.

DaveL asks what the difference is between its:term=no vs no term= entry

DaveL summarizes: Marcis still sees a use case for having the capability for "term=yes/no", whether that is in a separate data category or in the tan(ex. disambig) category.

DaveL says you don't support the possibility to capture BOTH an automated process and input from a terminologist.

DaveL asks how critical merging the two categories is

chriLi agrees with changes to former disambig data category, but suggests that we should come up with a solution to cover points still only in term category,

with the view to deprecating the term data category

Tadej believes this is possible

DaveL asks who will be avail. for Monday call: Tadej yes, Marcis yes, Christian: no