[native-lang] IRC Meeting - l10n QA
Dear All, last week, Charles, Maho and myself succeeded in finding a time slot to set up a meeting on l10n QA. Here the details for the IRC QA topic: Date/Time: January 9th, 2007 1:00 pm CET (Paris time) - 2:15 pm CET (Paris time) Meeting logistics: IRC network FreeNode, #ooonlc Agenda: - Scope of this meeting - 5 minutes - Major steps in the l10n QA process - 10 minutes - l10n TCM testing - 10 minutes - QATracktool - 10 minutes - Approval for release QA for localized package - QA Just let me know if you wish to add any other QA relevant topics to the agenda Regards, Rafaella - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[native-lang] Re: [qa-dev] IRC Meeting - l10n QA
Great to have you attending this meeting! I've updated the agenda with yours as well as Vito's input at: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/IRC_Meetings#Meeting_Topic:_L10n_QA. Rafaella Thorsten Ziehm wrote: Hi Rafaella, I would like to attend this meeting. We should discuss about the release process of the localized builds. I think it's part of the last agenda point your wrote. But if not, it should be part of the meeting. Thorsten Rafaella Braconi wrote: Dear All, last week, Charles, Maho and myself succeeded in finding a time slot to set up a meeting on l10n QA. Here the details for the IRC QA topic: Date/Time: January 9th, 2007 1:00 pm CET (Paris time) - 2:15 pm CET (Paris time) Meeting logistics: IRC network FreeNode, #ooonlc Agenda: - Scope of this meeting - 5 minutes - Major steps in the l10n QA process - 10 minutes - l10n TCM testing - 10 minutes - QATracktool - 10 minutes - Approval for release QA for localized package - QA Just let me know if you wish to add any other QA relevant topics to the agenda Regards, Rafaella - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [native-lang] Status update season!
Christian Lohmaier wrote: Swedish dictionary (which is from 2003, but almost unchanged since 1997) has 24,489 basic forms and expands to 118,270 variations. This is clearly inferior. So here you see another problem. If a language has lots of variations of a single word, how can you judge that not 12000 of the expanded words are based on useless words (not in widespread use, hiding typos,...) or the other way round: You cannot tell that the important ones are present. What I can tell you is that it is impossible to cover the important words in Swedish if your expanded list only contains 118,270 words unless they were hand-picked, and I know they are not. You seem to be of the opinion that this task is impossible, but it is not. I don't have to arrive at complete knowledge, I only have to outsmart the competition. So far, Microsoft and other vendors can say that their product is robust, well researched and based on science, while the spell checker in OpenOffice is based on wild guessing and general cluelessness. The buyer/procurer doesn't have anything to counter such statements. All I need is a sufficiently strong argument to counter whatever Microsoft is saying. It's like the two people walking on the savanna of Africa when a lion comes up behind them. They start to run, but one of them says: it's no idea, we can never outrun the lion. The other answers: I don't have to outrun the lion, I only have to outrun you. Now, in fact it isn't Microsoft that's giving OpenOffice a bad name. It's the Swedish branch of Sun Microsystems that on their web pages for StarOffice claim that this product contains a professional grade Swedish spell checker, while OpenOffice has one created in web forums that cannot really be trusted. I do take offense, and I think this strategy is unwise of Sun, because it gives them enemies in places where they ought to be looking for friends. But I think I can outrun Sun here. It's they who are pushing me into this fight. And we all know the lion. -- Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [native-lang] Status update season!
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:16:37AM +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote: Christian Lohmaier wrote: Swedish dictionary (which is from 2003, but almost unchanged since 1997) has 24,489 basic forms and expands to 118,270 variations. This is clearly inferior. So here you see another problem. If a language has lots of variations of a single word, how can you judge that not 12000 of the expanded words are based on useless words (not in widespread use, hiding typos,...) or the other way round: You cannot tell that the important ones are present. What I can tell you is that it is impossible to cover the important words in Swedish if your expanded list only contains 118,270 words unless they were hand-picked, and I know they are not. You seem to be of the opinion that this task is impossible, but it is not. The topic was: Measuring the quality/comparing the quality of dictionaries. Having a tag x% completed or something. My point is: You cannot judge it by the number of words alone (apart from telling that a dictionary is really bad). But unfortunately the topic seems to drift away becasue of misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations :-( ciao Christian -- NP: Pantera - Walk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
