See also: IRC log
checking attendees ...
dave: have a tbd section - one
area is licensing
... that would take up e.g. work done in META-SHARE and tda
yves: I have read the doc, didn't see any issues
"tbd: purpose help to formulate reqdocs. then: mention projects."
dave: trying to attract other
projects - would be good to run this pass chris wendt
... there is not in the way of terminology integration
... also may be relevant for alolita
... from wikimedia
"tbd: cef out of focus."
" tbd: mention other standards explicitly? what is a standard? "
dave: point to current projects -
there is also ongoing work that we can point to
... e.g. bitext access on the web, we are doing that in the
bpmlod group
... there is licensing work in the ld4lt group
... need to have a way to point to these group
felix: raise awareness in above groups and make them aware that we'd like their input
dave: also ontolex and the tbx /
RDF work, need input from Philipp here
... I will present this in the MLi panel at the LT-Innovate
event in brussels next week
... maybe have a little questionnaire that people can pick up
to follow up
"Open standards. Open standards are standards that can be implemented on a royalty-free basis, that is, without any licensing requirements."
arle: need to add to the above: there needs to be a policy for maintaining them in an open way as well
dave: bring up this week bpmlod call; had raised it at ld4lt last week.
felix: I'll contact ontolex and alolita
dave: if any of this feeds into
the CEF call, that would help
... would help to get the right people on board here
... might help to talk to EU people to see if they have
guidance
"tbd: mention other standards explicitly? what is a standard?"
dave: two elements of this:
... listing things that are already availabe
... you can say: relevant existing standards, and standards
that are worked on: lemon, XLIFF 2.0, ...
... and then saying: where are the gaps?
... one objective is: we don't know the answers always - there
are some areas in which gaps need to be filled and there may be
new work to be done
... that may also help e.g. EU to decide what to support
... put in DCAT
felix: MQM?
arle: it is not a standard yet, but moving into that direction
dave: so one could have several categories: final standard, draft standard, technology areas that need standardaration
"Bitext Data Management Requirements" - here MQM would fit very well as s.t. being prepared
scribe: e.g. lemon would very
well
... in that way too
... section at the end - "gap analysis"
... table . we now have numbered requirements. we tick of
maturity of avail. solutions
felix will add at the beginning about intention to do an IG draft (to be discussed)
dave: also have a contributors section
arle: get feedback from gala too, contacting several people
felix: have a section for mentioning meta-net and other efforts those those communitieswould benefit from this
dave: good idea
... lot of mt researchers are now using wikipedia for mt
training, maybe a good collab. point with meta-net, e.g.
experience in a particular country
felix: I'll check with the meta-net guys
arle: josef v.g. may be the right person to check that
felix describing web IDL choice options - web IDL for defining interfaces, plain json for serializing the current XML - XLIFF
yves: web IDL relation is
confusing (CR versus other draft)
... in XLIFF we need two things, both API and data format
aspect
... API is not useful if you don't have a clear object
definition
dave: your existing API - is that a good model?
yves: needs to be more
generic
... main problem is data format - depends on what you want to
represent
... e.g. how to represent inline code is quite complex, you
have distinct solutions
... not sure on how to proceed
dave: talked to david about this - general feeling is: inline codes dealing with overlapping annotations is in the heart of this
yves: if this is then not XML
people would see things differently
... inline representation is key
... will talk to david about this again e.g. on the next
call
arle: worth looping in linport in this, they are discussing APIs right now, trying to clarify relationsships to others
dave: we had discussion in
FEISGILTT about MQM and relationship to ITS "localization
quality issue" types
... there then was exchange on the list about this, Arle
clarifying things
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Jun/0000.html
dave: arle saying how to map MQM into ITS or into other things - is that correct?
arle: to some extend. MQM allows
you to declare that you check
... ITS can be more or less of what you check
... so you could declare an MQM model that is ITS
... the idea: ITS provides broad interop, if people map their
categories they know what is there
... MQM would not know in advance what is in a metrics
dave: in ITS you have the loc
quality profile ref
... in the MQM doc you could put the reference to the precise
MQM type
... so the mapping will be definitive
... MQM structure details would be lost or would need to be in
the string of ITS locProfileRef
arle: you would define a mapping and point to a file that has the mappings
yves: I think in ITS you cannot declare things at the top
Arle: ok
... the reference could point to an MQM declaration
... that looses the ability of what the overall profile
is
... one could use MQM without having MQM specific markup in
ITS
dave: you hit all problems if you start with an XML vocabulary
arle: felix had said a while ago if we should use RDF instead of XML - we may end up doing that for MQM (or have both)
dave: sometimes people have a
vocabulary and a document in parallel
... but you can put definitions into RDF and then generate an
HTML document which is human readable
... what is your timeline on this, Arle?
arle: development is planned to continue in qt21 and potentially in other projects
dave: in ld4lt it works quite
well to team up with people to do some specific work items,
e.g. taking an existing model, do rdf related things - but the
group who brings in the topic still owns it
... the benefit for the group who bring in the topic is more
feedback and visibility, but they don't loose ownership
... good example is meta-share schema discussion
... I am one of the ld4lt co-chairs, we could bring it up on
the ld4lt call next week (Thursday 3 p.m.)
felix: arle could bring his material to the call and we'd see what the ontology engineers can do with that
dave: agree. one reasons also why
the MQM / RDF disucssion is interesting: they are
opportunistics, using what is avail. from wikipedia or
babelnet
... many resources are under active curation. being avail. to
report such things back in an open way would be a great use
case for MQM
... MQM would have a lot of the semantics for such error
reporting
arle: perfect, that is exactly what we want to do
dave: great - I will email ld4lt group and CC Arle, saying we are planning to put it on the agenda
arle: ok
dave: and you can reply to that providing more info
arle: ok
adjourned
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/@@@/chris wendt/ Succeeded: s/follow/follow up/ Succeeded: s/community, who /those communities/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: fsasaki Inferring Scribes: fsasaki Present: DaveLewis arle felix yves Regrets: david christian Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Jun/0016.html Got date from IRC log name: 18 Jun 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/06/18-i18nits-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]