Re: issue-60 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD)

• From: Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de>
• Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:15:23 +0100
• To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
• CC: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
• Message-ID: <50CAEE2B.3010203@bioloom.de>

Hi Felix,
Looks good to me, except in the notes column we should replace "This 
category has ..." with "This value has ...". There are also some few 
other notes (i.e. locale-violation, internationalization, and other) 
with "category" that need to be streamlined as well.
Cheers -- Jörg
On Dec 13, 2012 at 16:13 (UTC+1), Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Hi Jörg, all,
>
> I tried to implement this in the draft, see
> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissue-typevalues
>
>
> If there is no disagreement I would close the issue on the monday call.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 12.12.12 14:47, schrieb Jörg Schütz:
>> Hi Arle,
>>
>> Some corrections and amendments for #1:
>>
>> (1) A text is defective in ways the defy categorization, ... => A text
>> is defective in ways to defy categorization, ...
>>
>> (2) (e.g., a translation shows severe grammatical defects and appears
>> unrelated to the source material) => (e.g., a translation shows an
>> unintelligible result and/or appears unrelated to the source material)
>>
>> Cheers -- Jörg
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2012 at 09:21 (UTC+1), Arle Lommel wrote:
>>> If we take this approach, here is a pass at the information needed for
>>> #1 with changes in *red bold*
>>>
>>> *Value*
>>>
>>>     uncategorized
>>>
>>> *Description*
>>>
>>>     The issue *either *has not been categorized *or cannot be
>>> categorized*
>>>
>>> *Example*
>>>
>>>   * A new version of a tool returns information on an issue that has not
>>>     been previously checked and that is not yet classified.
>>>   * *A text is defective in ways the defy categorization, such as the
>>>     appearance of nonsense garbled text of unknown origin (e.g., a
>>>     translation shows severe grammatical defects and appears unrelated
>>>     to the source material)*
>>>
>>> *Scope*
>>>
>>>     S or T
>>>
>>> *Notes*
>>>
>>>     This category has two *the following* uses:
>>>
>>>       * A tool can use it to pass through quality data from another tool
>>>         in cases where the issues from the other tool are not classified
>>>         (for example, a localization quality assurance tool interfaces
>>>         with a third-party grammar checker).
>>>       * A tool's issues are not yet assigned to categories, and, until
>>>         an updated assignment is made, they may be
>>>         listed asuncategorized. In this case it is recommended that
>>>         issues be assigned to appropriate categories as soon as possible
>>>         since uncategorized does not foster interoperability.
>>>       * *Uncategorized can be used where a portion of text is defective
>>>         in a way that defies assignment to a category in either the
>>>         originating system or in any other ITS localization quality
>>>         markup to indicate that it is uncategorizable.*
>>>
>>> #2 would come along next year.
>>>
>>> #3 probably wouldn't need much update at this point since their is only
>>> a slight expansion of meaning in this category. However, when QTLP's
>>> tool develops I could add it in. This would again be next year.
>>>
>>> My guess, by the way, is that this can be seen as clarification of
>>> usage, rather than a substantive change, but we can see what others
>>> think…
>>>
>>> -Arle
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2012 Dec 12, at 06:17 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org
>>> <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you, Jörg. Going the "stability path" seems also reasonable
>>>> given this positive development
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0061.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the actions needed would be
>>>>
>>>> 1) clarification of "uncategorized"
>>>> 2) having an example that demonstrates the usage in the MT scenario -
>>>> not necessarily in the spec, but as part of best practices and to see
>>>> the annotation the qt launchpad project would produce
>>>> 3) update
>>>> https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Tool_specific_mappings#Mappings_for_Localization_Quality_Issue_Type
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/its20-tool-specific-mappings.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arle, would that work for you? If yes, when could you do 1-3?
>>>>
>>>> With regards to Phil's mail at
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2012Dec/0010.html
>>>>
>>>> I see this as a different topic, but would prefer not to add values or
>>>> attributes at this time, like with issue-60. Phil, if you still need
>>>> this please create a seperate comment.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Felix
>>>>
>>>> Am 11.12.12 20:57, schrieb Jörg Schütz:
>>>>> That's a very good solution to avoid a possible type value tsunami
>>>>> and additional LC (if this is really the case with such an addition).
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, your "1862" example is a candidate for the
>>>>> "mistranslation" type.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers -- Jörg
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 11, 2012 at 18:31 (UTC+1), Arle Lommel wrote:
>>>>>> The other alternative is that we expand the semantics of
>>>>>> "uncategorized"
>>>>>> slightly to allow for a more naturalistic interpretation such that it
>>>>>> doesn't mean "we haven't categorized it" to "we haven't or can't
>>>>>> categorize it". That would be satisfactory as well, I think, and
>>>>>> less of
>>>>>> a change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Arle
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:27 , Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de
>>>>>> <mailto:arle.lommel@dfki.de>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jörg is correct here that nothing has this already. This is really
>>>>>>> looking forward to QT Launchpad work. If saying "nobody has
>>>>>>> implemented this so far" disqualifies it, then we would be forced to
>>>>>>> use "uncategorized" and add some custom markup. That wouldn't be the
>>>>>>> end of the world for us, but it would be nice to have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, see my last mail about how I see this as different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I can say, up front, that if this isn't accepted I won't hold
>>>>>>> anything up over it, so the moment this causes real problems, we can
>>>>>>> drop it.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Arle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:15 , Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de
>>>>>>> <mailto:joerg@bioloom.de>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Felix,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since an additional value doesn't actually harm the type list which
>>>>>>>> certainly can be seen as open ended (but still backward
>>>>>>>> compatible),
>>>>>>>> the need for a subsequent LC is questionable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, the proposed quality type value "unintelligible" for
>>>>>>>> the described output case might be controversial because it does
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> indicate/reflect a quality consideration as the other types in the
>>>>>>>> list do. The QT Launchpad project should therefore consider to use
>>>>>>>> "uncategorized" because this value might indicate the "trashy"
>>>>>>>> quality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And TMK, I'm not aware of any language proofing technology that
>>>>>>>> uses
>>>>>>>> "unintelligible" has a quality value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers -- Jörg

Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 09:15:26 UTC