Criterion: Machine Translation System (basic level)
> A machine translation system is an "Basic level system" if its
> largest dictionary contains fewer than 50,000 entries OR if has
> very limited facilities for users to extend the dictionary OR if
> its translation capability is restricted to the translation of
> single-clause (basic) sentences. Systems at this level are
> primarily meant for home use.
Criterion: Machine Translation System (standard level)
> A machine translation system is a "Standard level system" if it
> contains a dictionary of more than 50,000 root entries AND it is
> not restricted to the translation of single-clause (basic) sentences
> AND it provides facilities for the user to extend the dictionary.
> Systems at this level are primarily meant for home use or
> standalone office use.
OK.
Criterion: Machine Translation System (advanced level)
> A machine translation system is an "Advanced level system" if its
> smallest dictionary contains more than 75,000 root entries AND it
> is not restricted to the translation of single-clause sentences
> AND it provides facilities for the user to extend the dictionary
> AND it supports a configuration in which more than one client can
> be networked with a single central server computer. Systems at
> this level are primarily meant for office use with networking
> capabilities.
I don't like the term 'advanced level' as it stands because it infers
an advanced level of translation quality - certainly superior to that
of 'standard level'. 'Basic level' should manage to keep the poor-
quality systems in a separate league, but a system with intermediate
performance can be termed 'advanced' while a system with excellent
performance can be termed 'standard' if it can't support networks.
I just don't like the idea that the difference between a standard and
advanced system is 25000 words and network compatibility As we're
not distinguishing between the quality of 'standard' and 'advanced'
systems, (even though the labels IMPLY we are) I think the ratings
should reflect this fact.
My suggestion would be to have:
2 levels (which would indicate what the user could expect by way of
translation quality) and:
2 labels [networked and standalone] to indicate networking capability
(which can infer whether or not the product is suitable for use in a
translation company / department).
These are the two criteria that 'shoppers' would like to know (I
would say?
MT system Level 1 EG Winbabel
MT system Level 2 (standalone) EG Word Magic (I think?!)
MT system Level 2* (network compatible) EG Systran
MT system Level 2+ (network obligatory) EG Logos
I would say two things about my suggestion:
(1) L&H (as an example) might like to be able to put their French
Assistant (entry level) product into Level 2 (as I think it
qualifies), and their Power Translator product into Level 3. Lots of
other companies (I've compiled an on-line list of companies, their
supported langauges and their URLs and put it on my website) will
also have products which from a marketing point of view, would be
best split into levels 1, 2 and 3.
(2) To the MT community's knowledge, is a system's networkability
directly linked to its quality?
If this is the case, then how about the labels:
MT system Level 1
MT system Level 2
MT system Level 2*n (network compatible)
MT system Level 2+n (network obligatory)
If you want to introduce another level of translation quality
MT system Level 3
Then it would be my opinion that serious thinking will need to be
done to be able to separate the levels of quality of Level 2 and
Level 3 systems. As an example, which levels would people assign to
the systems I have listed (with sample translations) below?
One point about certification:
Why not have logos on MT companies' web pages which are obligatorily
linked to the IAMT's website? EG:
<a target="www.iamt.com/mt-certif-info.html#lh_powertranx><img
src=www.iamt.com/mt-certif/lh_powertranx.gif></a>
This would mean that buyers could be confident about the IAMT's seal
of approval.
What do other people think?
David
PS Sorry to drag the whole debate back to quality, but I just don't
like the label 'XXX level' which really means features but implies
quality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Translations:
I don't like the third label as it stands because it infers an
advanced level of translation quality - certainly superior to the
standard level of the second level of systems. The first category
should manage to keep the poor-quality systems in a separate league,
but a system with intermediate performance can be termed advanced
while a system with excellent performance can be termed standard if
it can't support networks.
A Winbabel
Je don't �tiquette ressemblant le troisi�me comme cela postes puisque
cela d�dui an avanc� niveau de qualit� de traduction - certainement
sup�rieur � le niveau de norme du niveau de second de syst�mes. Le
classe premier devrait procurer � nourrir le pauvre-syst�mes de
qualit� en un ligue s�par�, mais un syst�me avec ex�cution
interm�diaire pouvoir �tre termed avanc� tant que un syst�me avec
ex�cution excellent pouvoir �tre termed norme si it't r�saux de
support.
B Tolken-97
Je don't comme tiers label comme elle stands attendu que elle infers
un advanced plat de traduction propri�t� - certainement supr�me �
drapeau plat de deuxi�me plat de systems. premier cat�gorie devoir
administrer � continuer poor-quality systems � � particulier ligue,
mais � syst�me � intermediate performance pouvoir �tre termed
advanced durant � syst�me � excellent performance pouvoir �tre termed
drapeau � condition que elle can't appuyer r�seaux.
C www.freetranslation.com (Transcend)
Je n'aime pas la troisi�me �tiquette comme il se tient parce qu'il
conclut un niveau avanc� de qualit� de traduction - certainement
sup�rieur au niveau standard du deuxi�me niveau de syst�mes. La
premi�re cat�gorie devrait g�rer pour garder les syst�mes de pauvre-
qualit� dans une ligue s�par�e, mais un syst�me avec l'ex�cution
interm�diaire peut �tre termed a avanc� pendant qu'un syst�me avec
l'ex�cution excellente peut �tre termed la norme s'il ne peut pas
soutenir de r�seau.
D http://www.translate.ru/eng/other.asp (Prompt)
Je n'aime pas la troisi�me �tiquette comme il est debout parce qu'il
d�duit un niveau avanc� de qualit� de traduction - certainement
sup�rieur au niveau standard du deuxi�me niveau de syst�mes. La
premi�re cat�gorie doit r�ussir � tenir les syst�mes de mauvaise
qualit� dans une ligue s�par�e, mais un syst�me avec l'ex�cution
(performance) interm�diaire peut �tre nomm� avanc� tandis qu'un
syst�me avec l'ex�cution(performance) excellente peut �tre nomm� la
norme s'il ne peut pas soutenir des r�seaux.
E French Assistant
Je n'aime pas la troisi�me �tiquette comme il est debout parce qu'il
inf�re un niveau avanc� de qualit� de la traduction- certainement
sup�rieur au niveau standard du deuxi�me niveau de syst�mes. La
premi�re cat�gorie doit diriger garder les syst�mes du pauvre-qualit�
dans une ligue s�par�e, mais un syst�me avec performance
interm�diaire peut �tre appel� le temps avanc� un syst�me avec
performance excellente peut �tre appel� standard s'il ne peut pas
supporter des r�seaux.
F Power-Translator
Je n'aime pas la troisi�me �tiquette comme il se trouve parce qu'il
inf�re un niveau avanc� de qualit� de la traduction - certainement
sup�rieur au niveau standard du deuxi�me niveau de syst�mes. La
premi�re cat�gorie devrait r�ussir � garder les syst�mes de qualit�
pauvre dans une ligue s�par�e, mais un syst�me avec performance
interm�diaire peut �tre appel� avanc� pendant qu'un syst�me avec
excellente performance peut �tre appel� standard s'il ne peut pas
supporter de r�seaux.
G Systran
Je n'aime pas la troisi�me �tiquette sans modification parce qu'il
implique un niveau avan�� de la qualit� de traduction -
certainement sup�rieure au niveau standard du deuxi�me niveau des
syst�mes. La premi�re cat�gorie devrait parvenir � maintenir les
syst�mes de mauvaise qualit� dans une ligue s�par�e, mais un
syst�me avec l'ex�cution interm�diaire peut se nommer avan��
tandis qu'un syst�me avec l'excellente ex�cution peut se nommer
norme s' il ne peut pas soutenir des r�seaux.
HTTP://www.ccl.umist.ac.uk/ra/dmowatt/
--
For MT-List info, see http://www.eamt.org/mt-list.html
