OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TCIcon indicating the project type

OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

Uploaded image for project: 'OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC'
  1. OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
  2. XLIFF-9 Use (also) the normal ITS namespace in the ITSM module
  3. XLIFF-8

mtc:matchQuality cannot be interpreted as ITS MT confidence by ITS processors

    Details

    • Proposal:
      Hide

      This cannot be really resolved, due to the lack of the global pointer. the category is already called a partial overlap. XLIFF does express the same data category. I suggest to address this with a warning or note highlighting that this is not accessible ITS Processors who are not XLIFF agents supporting the Translation Candidates module. On the other hand the global pointer could be easily defined as an ITS extension by the ITS IG group..

      Show
      This cannot be really resolved, due to the lack of the global pointer. the category is already called a partial overlap. XLIFF does express the same data category. I suggest to address this with a warning or note highlighting that this is not accessible ITS Processors who are not XLIFF agents supporting the Translation Candidates module. On the other hand the global pointer could be easily defined as an ITS extension by the ITS IG group..
    • Resolution:
      Hide

      CFD result (after 24th Jan 2017):
      Warning or Note highlighting that this is not accessible by ITS Processors who are not XLIFF Agents supporting the Translation Candidates module. The category remains a partial overlap category..

      Show
      CFD result (after 24th Jan 2017): Warning or Note highlighting that this is not accessible by ITS Processors who are not XLIFF Agents supporting the Translation Candidates module. The category remains a partial overlap category..

      Description

      I'm not sure how we can say that MT Confidence is supported in XLIFF:
      The ITS specification does not have global pointer for that data category in ITS.

      Isn't this a case similar to Localization Note where we can easily transfer the data into XLIFF, but technically, a ITS processor
      cannot get the same result?

        Attachments

          Activity

          Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
          Hide
          Permalink
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

          This is CFD to resolve this issue as proposed in the section "Proposal"
          i.e. with a Warning or Note highlighting that this is not accessible ITS Processors who are not XLIFF agents supporting the Translation Candidates module. The category remains a partial overlap category..
          I will implement this solution unless challenged by January 24th 2017.

          Show
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment - This is CFD to resolve this issue as proposed in the section "Proposal" i.e. with a Warning or Note highlighting that this is not accessible ITS Processors who are not XLIFF agents supporting the Translation Candidates module. The category remains a partial overlap category.. I will implement this solution unless challenged by January 24th 2017.
          Hide
          Permalink
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

          The Warning was already present in the csprd01 draft
          http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd01/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd01.html#MT_Confidence
          so no action is required to apply the CFD Resolution. Changing to no action..

          Show
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment - The Warning was already present in the csprd01 draft http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd01/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd01.html#MT_Confidence so no action is required to apply the CFD Resolution. Changing to no action..
          Hide
          Permalink
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

          Category was already partial overlap and the Warning about inaccessibility of Translation Candidates based MT Confidence by generic ITS Processors was already there in csprd01
          http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd01/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd01.html#MT_Confidence

          Show
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment - Category was already partial overlap and the Warning about inaccessibility of Translation Candidates based MT Confidence by generic ITS Processors was already there in csprd01 http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd01/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd01.html#MT_Confidence
          Hide
          Permalink
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

          This has been reopened because of a new finding by Yves
          http://markmail.org/thread/6kvjlbuuo3vczkfe

          It seems to me the relationship between the 3 attributes matchQuality, its:locQualityRatingScore and its:mtConfidence is a bit confusing.

          • According the specification both matchQuality can be used to represent its:locQualityRatingScore and its:mtConfidence.
            One question that comes to mind is: What if you have both data categories set for a given <mtc:match>? How can matchQuality takes both values? (maybe the answer the third bullet?).
          • There is a “[WIP]” marker (Work In Progress” I assume) that is at the end of this paragraph:
            “The attribute locQualityRatingScore MUST NOT be used on <mtc:match>, where it maps to and from mtc:matchQuality unless in scope of mt-confidence annotatorRef [WIP].”
          • I’m not sure I understand the constraint above: It seems to say matchQuality maps to mtConfidence if it’s within the scope of an annotatorRef for mt-confidence (and then we have to use locQualityRatingScore for locQualityRatingScore), otherwise matchQuality maps to locQualityRatingScore. Is that correct?
            If so, it seems a recipe for a lot of problems: Some implementations may not support both MT Confidence and Localization Quality Scope.
            I’m also not quite sure why two different ITS data categories values can map to the same XLIFF value: Is that means mtConfidence and locQualityRatingScore represent the same thing in ITS?
          Show
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment - This has been reopened because of a new finding by Yves http://markmail.org/thread/6kvjlbuuo3vczkfe It seems to me the relationship between the 3 attributes matchQuality, its:locQualityRatingScore and its:mtConfidence is a bit confusing. According the specification both matchQuality can be used to represent its:locQualityRatingScore and its:mtConfidence. One question that comes to mind is: What if you have both data categories set for a given <mtc:match>? How can matchQuality takes both values? (maybe the answer the third bullet?). There is a “ [WIP] ” marker (Work In Progress” I assume) that is at the end of this paragraph: “The attribute locQualityRatingScore MUST NOT be used on <mtc:match>, where it maps to and from mtc:matchQuality unless in scope of mt-confidence annotatorRef [WIP] .” I’m not sure I understand the constraint above: It seems to say matchQuality maps to mtConfidence if it’s within the scope of an annotatorRef for mt-confidence (and then we have to use locQualityRatingScore for locQualityRatingScore), otherwise matchQuality maps to locQualityRatingScore. Is that correct? If so, it seems a recipe for a lot of problems: Some implementations may not support both MT Confidence and Localization Quality Scope. I’m also not quite sure why two different ITS data categories values can map to the same XLIFF value: Is that means mtConfidence and locQualityRatingScore represent the same thing in ITS?
          Hide
          Permalink
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

          In the meeting 16th May 2017, we agreed that there are three possible solutions
          1) keep looking for annotatorsRef to see which category is represented
          2) reserve mtc:matchQuality for its:mtConfidence and represent rating score with the W3C namespace
          3) use W3C namespace for both, encourage implementers to use the same score for its:mtConfidence and mtc:matchQuality

          We also noted that this issue doesn't exist in core where both categories use the W3C ITS namespace.

          Yves to get Felixe's opinion on whether 2 or 3 is better. TC fine with either.

          Show
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment - In the meeting 16th May 2017, we agreed that there are three possible solutions 1) keep looking for annotatorsRef to see which category is represented 2) reserve mtc:matchQuality for its:mtConfidence and represent rating score with the W3C namespace 3) use W3C namespace for both, encourage implementers to use the same score for its:mtConfidence and mtc:matchQuality We also noted that this issue doesn't exist in core where both categories use the W3C ITS namespace. Yves to get Felixe's opinion on whether 2 or 3 is better. TC fine with either.
          Hide
          Permalink
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

          We have consensus to go fpr option 2) based on this discussion
          http://markmail.org/thread/u3k644ddhnon5b2m
          This will be considered the approved solution unless dissent expressed by any TC member by Friday May 19, NOON UTC.

          Show
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment - We have consensus to go fpr option 2) based on this discussion http://markmail.org/thread/u3k644ddhnon5b2m This will be considered the approved solution unless dissent expressed by any TC member by Friday May 19, NOON UTC.
          Hide
          Permalink
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

          Implemented in prose and committed to SVN

          Show
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment - Implemented in prose and committed to SVN
          Hide
          Permalink
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

          To be printed on 19th May

          Show
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment - To be printed on 19th May
          Hide
          Permalink
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

          Forgot to close before 4th PR.

          Show
          DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive) added a comment - Forgot to close before 4th PR.

            People

            • Assignee:
              ysavourel Yves Savourel [X] (Inactive)
              Reporter:
              ysavourel Yves Savourel [X] (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Due:
                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: