Manual evaluation of patents (and MOLTO at MTSummit)

The MTSummit 2011 has been this week, including a workshop specialised on patent translation. MOLTO has been presented with talk at the workshop.

There have been presentations of the most important patents offices and, as expected, all of them apply manual evaluation to their translations. It seems interesting to us to use similar criteria to theirs in our evaluation. As an example I copy the evaluation criteria followed by EPO:

Quality level: Ranking for human evaluation

5

Accurate + consistence IPC vocabulary

The translation is understandable and actionable, with all critical information accurately transferred. Most of the text is well written using a language consistent with patent literature.

4

Fluent - consistence IPC vocabulary

The translation is understandable and actionable, with all most critical information accurately transferred. Some text is well written using a language consistent with patent literature.

3

Actionable

The translation is not entirely understandable and actionable, with some critical information accurately transferred. The text is of the text is well written using a language consistent with patent literature.

2

May be actionable

Possibly understandable and actionable (given enough context and/or time to work it out), with some information stylistically or grammatically odd, but the language may still reflect a sound content to a patent professional. Most of the text written using a language consistent with patent literature.

1

Not useful

Absolutely not comprehensible and/or little or no information is transferred accurately.

Proceedings are quite large for the web, but ask me if somebody is interested on them.

Cristina