Machine Translation

Felix Sasaki felix.sasaki at
Fri Sep 11 18:35:44 CEST 2009

I would agree with Yves Savourel that for translation tool developers, this
kind of information is better provided via a different field. Other
practical information which one could not pack into a broad data category
"machine translation" easily (to use Peter's terminology), but not easily in
the "language tag" field would be: name of system that generated the
translation (maybe several ones where used ...), quality of the input,
quality rating of the system (e.g. BLEU score). IMO these fine grained
differences are necessary for making use of this kind of metadata, and I
don't see a clear use case for a broad "machine translated" sub tag.


2009/9/11 Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at>

> Den 2009-09-11 17.32, skrev "Peter Constable" <petercon at>:
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at
> > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> >
> >> There is a difference in the case of XLIFF. If the extension subtag is
> just
> >> similar,
> >> but not identical to MT related information in other technologies like
> >> you
> >> will end up with a mess of *values*. This is IMO different from the
> script
> >> subtag
> >> case: Here you have the same values, but different *occurences*
> >
> > Expressed with different terminology: you end up with a mess of data
> > categories; in the script subtag case, you have a single data category
> with
> > many values.
> I don't think that should be a major issue. XLIFF, and other formats having
> separate attributes for this, could simply have that attribute take
> priority, even to the extent that "language extensions", in particular one
> that overlaps with an attribute, can be completely ignored in those
> formats.
>        /kent k
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list