If we are talking about output rendering for the glossary as rather than resolving an abbreviation reference, I submit that that is entirely an output processing issue that can be customized and that the DITA specification should not require any specific behavior. The spec may suggest optional output behavior, but since it isn’t required it doesn’t matter much at this stage. So I am happy to push forward with the proposal as it is, as long as we think it says the right things about how abbreviations are resolved. And I haven’t heard any problems on that front.
But having said the above, it sounds as if Kara thinks “emit” should be “omit” and Eric wrote “emit” deliberately because he thought that would be a reasonable thing to do.
-Jeff
From: Erik Hennum
[mailto:ehennum@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008
4:09 PM
To: Kara Warburton
Cc: bruce.esrig@gmail.com;
dita-translation@lists.oasis-open.org; Bruce Esrig; JoAnn Hackos; Ogden, Jeff;
Michael Priestley; Rodolfo M. Raya; Robert D Anderson
Subject: Re: Revised version of
the Acronym/Glossary Proposal
Hi, Bruce
and Kara:
Given that we've extended the deadline by a month to hammer out a merged
terminology proposal, I'd request that we worry only about inaccuracies and not
about infelicities in phrasing. The proposal itself is an important step toward
the specification, which has to integrate all of these proposals.
I think we've specified that processes should emit the surface form in contexts
where the user might not be familiar with the term. So, the question is whether
the glossary would count as one of those contexts.
In the standard example:
Term: Antilock Brake System
Acronym: ABS
Surface form: Antilock Brake System (ABS)
Would the user who has seen "ABS" on some page more easily recognize
a glossary listing as "Antilock Brake System" or as "Antilock
Brake System (ABS)"? If we think the former is better, maybe we can just
mention that errata to the TC tomorrow rather than asking the Technical
Committee to restart their review.
Thanks,
Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com
Kara Warburton <KARA@CA.IBM.COM>
|
Kara Warburton <KARA@CA.IBM.COM> 01/28/2008 12:35 PM |
|
Hi
Bruce,
Thanks, I hadn't noticed this! I think it was a
typo..... "emit" should
have been "omit".
Robert, could you change the sentence:
A glossary publishing process should emit the
surface form for the term.
to what I propose in the attached file (I'm
attaching it to avoid
corruption by e-mail clients). This new content
also addresses Bruce's
suggestion that we mention glossary output
formats. Perhaps you should put
this in the section "Usage for glossary
publishing".
(See attached file: abs.txt)
May I also suggest that you change the term
"translation workbench" to
"computer assisted translation
environment" (several occurrences). That is
the more standard term and some people may not
know exactly what you are
talking about with "workbench".
Thanks and best regards,
Kara Warburton
IBM Terminology
905-413-2170
IBM Intranet links:
Terminology WIKI: https://w3.webahead.ibm.com/w3ki/display/IBMterm/Home
IBM terminology: http://w3.ibm.com/standards/terminology
Terminology blog: http://blogs.tap.ibm.com/weblogs/page/kara@ca.ibm.com
"Bruce Esrig"
<esrig@alumni.pri
nceton.edu>
To
Sent by:
Kara
Warburton/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
bruce.esrig@gmail
cc
.com
"Erik Hennum" <ehennum@us.ibm.com>,
"JoAnn Hackos"
<joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>,
28/01/2008 02:19 "Ogden, Jeff"
<jogden@ptc.com>,
PM
Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
"Rodolfo M. Raya"
<rmraya@maxprograms.com>, "Robert D
Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com>
Subject
Re: Revised version of the
Acronym/Glossary Proposal
> A glossary publishing process should emit the
surface form for the term.
This appears under "Rendition of abbreviated
forms". The same text is
carried forward in the version Robert just
distributed.
Bruce
On 1/28/08, Bruce Esrig
<esrig@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
sorry, the quoted statement is from the HTML
text of the proposal that
Erik just circulated.
Bruce
On 1/28/08, Kara Warburton
<KARA@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
Bruce, I don't know where you got this.
Something I said must have been
misunderstood. The "surface form"
is not published in glossaries.
I'm not sure whether processing strategies
for published glossaries
should
or should not be in the markup proposal.
I'll let others comment on
that.
Kara Warburton
IBM Terminology
905-413-2170
IBM Intranet links:
Terminology WIKI: https://w3.webahead.ibm.com/w3ki/display/IBMterm/Home
IBM terminology: http://w3.ibm.com/standards/terminology
Terminology blog: http://blogs.tap.ibm.com/weblogs/page/kara@ca.ibm.com
"Bruce Esrig"
<esrig@alumni.pri
nceton.edu>
To
Sent by:
"Erik Hennum" <ehennum@us.ibm.com>
bruce.esrig@gmail
cc
.com
"JoAnn Hackos"
<joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>,
"Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>,
28/01/2008 12:39 Kara
Warburton/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
PM
Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
"Rodolfo M. Raya"
<rmraya@maxprograms.com>, "Robert
D
Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com>
Subject
Re: Revised version of the
Acronym/Glossary Proposal
Don't know whether this was caught on the
call, but after my e-mail
exchange with Kara and Robert last week,
the following sentence seems
oversimplified. I'll use brackets to
suggest an addition. Perhaps I
missed
a statement elsewhere of this fallback
behavior.
> A glossary publishing process should
emit the surface form for the
term.
[ If no surface form is provided, the
glossterm should be emitted. ]
Kara provided examples showing that the
glossary publishing process
could
also emit a supporting entry for the
acronym that refers to the full
term.
Is this mentioned / is the method for this
explained in the proposal?
Perhaps it is an existing mechanism.
Best wishes,
Bruce
On 1/28/08, Erik Hennum
<ehennum@us.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi, JoAnn:
Thanks very much for finding the time
despite your schedule demands to
take a review pass.
Here's the formatted output:
(See attached file:
IssueGlossary12026_TSC.html)
Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com
(Embedded image moved to file:
pic09507.gif)Inactive hide details for
"JoAnn Hackos"
<joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>"JoAnn Hackos" <
joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>
"JoAnn
Hackos"
<
joann.ha (Embedded image moved to
file:
ckos@com pic11644.gif)
tech-ser
To
v.com>
(Embedded image moved to file:
pic21553.gif)
<
01/27/20
dita-translation@lists.oasis-open
08 07:57
.org>, "Rodolfo M. Raya" <
AM
rmraya@maxprograms.com>, "Bruce
Esrig" <bruce.esrig@gmail.com>
(Embedded image moved to file:
pic18393.gif)
cc
(Embedded image moved to file:
pic02253.gif)
"Kara Warburton" <
KARA@CA.IBM.COM
>, Erik
Hennum/Oakland/IBM@IBMUS,
"Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>,
"Michael Priestley" <
mpriestl@CA.IBM.COM>
(Embedded image moved to file:
pic09340.gif)
Subject
(Embedded image moved to file:
pic17804.gif)
Revised version of the
Acronym/Glossary Proposal
(Embedded image moved to file:
pic23995.gif)
(Embedded image moved to
file:
pic29580.gif)
Hello All:
I have made minor changes to Erik's version
of the acronym/glossary
proposal and included one draft comment.
See the addition of the comment
about leaving an empty element in a
translation. I added a sentence that
suggests that translation software may
generate an error in this case.
The solution I suggest is to have the
translator duplicate the
<glossterm> in all instances including
surface form and full form.
I cannot take part in the Monday or Tuesday
meetings of the translation
SC or the DITA TC. ( I am teaching a
workshop) Could I ask Gershon to
represent the Translation SC at both
meetings?
Gershon, please let me know if you can
chair a translation SC meeting to
review the A/G proposal once more.
I have not incorporated Bruce Esrig's
rewording. I could also not
process
the HTML version because the version I
opened of Erik's Arbortext
content
did not display any of the tables after the
first. Have no idea why.
JoAnn
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver CO 80215
303-232-7586
joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
[attachment "IssueGlossary12026.dita"
deleted by Erik
Hennum/Oakland/IBM]
[attachment "abs.txt" deleted by Erik
Hennum/Oakland/IBM]