[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished?
Dear Josep, You need to separate two things: 1) segment translation status 2) target state In XLIFF a segment can be either translatable or not. This is indicated with an attribute. In turn, a translatable segment can be approved or not. This status is indicated in a separate attribute. An XLIFF document is considered translated when all translatable segments are approved. This is clearly indicated in the new specifications. Target status is a different problem. A translation inserted in target could be perfect or completely wrong. It could have been entered by a professional translator or generated by a machine. It could have been inherited from a TM system and need review. There is a whole set of combinations that need to be analyzed and the XLIFF TC has not started working on this yet for XLIFF 2.0. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya rmraya@maxprograms.com Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Josep Condal [mailto:pcondal@apsic.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:26 AM > To: Yves Savourel; xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished? > > Hi Yves, > > Thank you for the update. Since I see this is an open question, potentially > open for suggestions, I would like to add my own for consideration. > > In my opinion, a translatable segment has only two possible states: > Untranslated and Translated. > > Untranslated means that we know that segment is not translated and > Translated means that we know that the segment is translated, no matter > how dubious. For example, we know that a 80% fuzzy match does not aim to > be the translation of the original because we know for a fact that nothing was > done to address the missing 20%. On the other hand, we know that a > machine translation of a segments aims to be the translation of the full > segment, no matter how bad it can possibly turn out to be. > > Therefore the state of an 80% primed into target is "Untranslated" and the > state of a machine translated segment is "Translated". The essence is to > notify if the text in target has any foundation to be a valid translation or not. > > Depending on application, each state can have one or more stages, > supported under a different attribute that could be named "stage", which > will depend on the workflow needs for users/allowed by tools. > > In other words, in my opinion the "state" attribute tries to describe basic > information, and the proposed additional "stage" attribute could support any > workflow needs no matter how complex or tool/company specific. We, as a > LSP, can have workflow stages as specific as "client query pending", which > are nevertheless vital for a flawless execution. > > Also mostly workflow stage (translated, reviewed, QAed, etc) we are > concerned about is typically more relevant file-level information, not > segment-level information so segment-level stage information becomes > eventually obsolete when the whole file is understood to be at a given stage. > > I think that trying to consolidate workflow stage and segment state in a single > attribute as is is done currently in XLIFF 1.2 is making the state attribute > unreliable unless you own the whole stack of tools used in the process. > > Regards, > Josep. > > ________________________________________ > De: Yves Savourel [yves@opentag.com] > Enviado el: martes, 22 de mayo de 2012 13:22 > Para: Josep Condal; xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Asunto: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished? > > Hi Josep, > > While the discussion is currently about extensibility, the core is not complete > yet. > But it is well advanced. > > The topic about knowing if a segment is translated or not is still under work: > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/Feature/TranslationState > > cheers, > -yves > > > From: Josep Condal [mailto:pcondal@apsic.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:31 AM > To: xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished? > > Hi All, > > I see in the TC mailing list that focus in XLIFF 2.0 has now moved mainly to > extensibility. > > Has work on the XLIFF 2.0 unnegotiable Core been mostly completed? > > In particular I'm interested on if for XLIFF 2.0 there will be a univocal way to > determine if a segment is translated or not. > > Regards, > Josep. > > > -- > This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the OASIS XML > Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC. > > In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and to > minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required before posting. > > Subscribe: xliff-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > Unsubscribe: xliff-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > List help: xliff-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org > List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/ > Feedback License: http://www.oasis- > open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf > List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php > Committee: http://www.oasis- > open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xliff > Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]