Hi Yves, Rodolfo:
>For score/similarity/quality, we better use one attribute that indicates how similar the source text from the match is to the >source text being translated. If we add a second attribute for qualifying the "quality" of the translation supplied by the >generating agent, there will be lots of interpretation problems.
I agree with Rodolfo, I think only one attribute should be used to indicate the relation between the segment and the match (using a similarity score seems a fair solution), I would discard the "quality" idea, as it is extremely difficult to come up with quantitative method to obtain a score that would be widely accepted and it would always be a subjective dependent topic.
Regarding optional attributes that this element could have, I had added some time ago some proposals to the wiki (some of them are already present in the 1.2), I only introduced the "provenance" attributes that could contain information about the origin of the translation match (which was the topic of my research).
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/Feature/Translation%20Proposals
Lucía
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Rodolfo M. Raya
Sent: 20 September 2012 15:22
To: 'Yves Savourel';
Subject: RE: [xliff] Y22 - Translation proposals
Hi Yves,
Regarding the "ïd" attribute, I'll put a definition in the module's own section instead of using the general one.
For score/similarity/quality, we better use one attribute that indicates how similar the source text from the match is to the source text being translated. If we add a second attribute for qualifying the "quality" of the translation supplied by the generating agent, there will be lots of interpretation problems.
We do need a list of values for the type of match. It would be great if you can supply one.
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: [xliff] Y22 - Translation proposals
>
> I had the action item to look at the item Y22 and report on its state.
>
> === a) id definition
>
> The specification lists id as an optional attribute, but does not
> define it in the attribute section of the module, instead it points to the general id section.
>
>
> === b) score/similarity/quality
>
> - based on the notes in the wiki and the discussion we had a long
> while ago, I think we are not settled yet on what the
> score/similarity/quality attribute should be named and what it should represent.
> See for example:
> http://markmail.org/message/iuchpu5isa7vxexo?q=similarity+list:org%2Eo
> as
> is-open%2Elists%2Exliff
>
> I think the situation can be summarized as: there are three types of
> information:
>
> - how similar the source of the match is compared to the source of the
> searched text
>
> - how good the quality of the candidate translation is
>
> - some kind of score/ranking value that may take into account the two
> values above and possibly others to provide a value that can be used
> for ordering the matches as to present the best first.
>
> The discussions seem to indicate that not all users use the same information.
> The question is: should we provide an attribute for each, or just one or two?
> Id so, which one.
>
> === c) type of match
>
> It seems there is a need to define also what kind of match the match
> is: MT, id-based match, in-context match, etc. If people think this is
> something we should have, I can try to come up with an initiallist.
>
>
> Cheers,
> -ys
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
