Maybe one could think of something like a comment or note in the header or somewhere else in the match which gives a reference/explanation which type of „quality measure“ was used.
In my Araya I have since a long time what I call phrase matches. Such a match is built from term matches (I think similar to MultiCorpora) and it might be interesting for the user to know that the match quality is computed differently from a match from a tm entry. Even for tm entry matches different systems uses different algorithms, even if edit distance (Levenshtein or what else) is used. Even if you Levenshtein the conversion from the edit distance to a % value can be computed in various ways. Not taking into account that edit distances can be weighted for insertions, deletion, replacements.
Another point: How are inline elements and their differences matched? Penalty, stringified element difference… Many options.
Creating a comparable quality measure is quite hard. As long as this is not standardised too.
Prof. Dr. Klemens Waldhör
Heartsome Europe GmbH
We also have TermBase matches at MultiCorpora, as well as fuzzy matches which I’m sure are already on everyone’s list.
I’m not in favor of having a special category for what Helena is describing as “global matches” or “optimized matches”, as I’m sure every organization has special ways of pulling out the most relevant matches and I’m sure each organization’s way is different. In the end they are still exact or fuzzy matches, and Lucia’s comment about the provenance could handle these situations.
PRODUCT MANAGER | GESTIONNAIRE DE PRODUIT
(819)778-7070 ext./poste 229
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Helena S Chapman
Sent: September-20-12 10:25 AM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya
Cc: email@example.com; 'Yves Savourel'
Subject: RE: [xliff] Y22 - Translation proposals
I tend to agree with Rodolfo on the quality/score attribute on keeping it simple to just a well defined attribute. Any reason why something like edit distance could not be applied for "similarity" and if so why not just call it "edit_distance"?
On the type of matches, I have definitely seen MT, exact match (similar to the id-match), and in-context match in IBM. However, we have also just rolled out another implementation that does parallel search against thousands of terabytes or petabytes of data to try skim the fat off the cream elsewhere. Within IBM, we just call it "global match" or some referred to as "optimized match". Are other organizations doing something similar and is that type of match considered different from the three already stated?
Helena Shih Chapman
Globalization Technologies and Architecture
+1-720-396-6323 or T/L 938-6323
From: "Rodolfo M. Raya" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'Yves Savourel'" <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/20/2012 09:23 AM
Subject: RE: [xliff] Y22 - Translation proposals
Sent by: <email@example.com>
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.
Rodolfo M. Raya firstname.lastname@example.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
> Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:01 AM
> To: email@example.com
> 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:
> I think the situation can be summarized as: there are three types of
> - 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.
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com