[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Forming a Working Liaison with ISO TC37/SC5 to push XLIFF 2.0 as ISO standard
Hi David,PAS and fast track are not the same thing. A PAS is not an international standard. I thought I explained this to you in my email. I think we should not be suggesting that XLIFF becomes a PAS.Best regards,Peter.
From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]Sent: Wed 2012-12-12 16:58
To: Peter Reynolds
Cc: xliff-promotion; bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com
Subject: Re: Forming a Working Liaison with ISO TC37/SC5 to push XLIFF 2.0 as ISO standardThanks Peter, based on my reading of the directives, both PAS and fast track process basically enter the TC/Sc process at the DIS stage/ the enquiry stage you quote.why do you think that the OASIS and ISO public reviews can happen at the same time. Both OASIS and ISO directives say that only final standards might be submitted to the Enquiry stage as DIS. That would mean to me that the OASIS redtape must be done before it can be formally submitted as either PAS or fast track.CheersdF
Dr. David Filip=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSISUniversity of Limerick, Irelandtelephone: +353-6120-2781cellphone: +353-86-0222-158facsimile: +353-6120-2734mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Peter Reynolds <p.reynolds@maart.pl> wrote:
Hi David,
There are several different liaisons which you can have with ISO.
A-Liaison is where the organization wants to be actively involved with a TC or subcommittee.
B-liaison is where the organization wants to be informed about what the committee is doing.
D-liaison is where the organization wants to be involved in a shorter term project in a working group.
I think A-liaison is the most relevant.
I am not sure what you mean about a PAS. I think you can only make proposals through a relevant committee and OASIS or its TCs can just make a proposal to committee that they do something unless they are connected with them.
That said, I have no idea why you want XLIFF to become a PAS. I don’t. A PAS is a Publicly Available Specifications which is usually an intermediate specification, published prior to the development of a full International Standard. The advantages of having XLIFF published as an ISO standard is that organizations and governments which are mandated to use ISO standards will use it. PAS has nowhere near the same status. Why would we consult Jamie on this?
I am proposing that XLIFF becomes a full international standard using the fast track mechanism.
ISO has a process for standards development which goes through a number of different stages.
Preliminary stage – A TC or subcommittee can decide there is a need for something and start looking at it. This is a very loose stage and nothing is on the table yet.
Proposal stage – A New Work Item Proposal (NWIP) is drawn up and these has to be voted on by national bodies. Usually the person who draws up the NWIP becomes the project leader. There can also be a project editor and project team appointed at this stage.
Preparatory stage – A working draft is created and this is commented on. This stage is where experts give their opinions and get the standard into shape. There can be any number of working drafts and usually there are 2 or 3.
Committee stage – At the committee stage the national bodies which make up ISO are commenting as opposed to the experts. In reality these are the same people but an expert would be expected to take the national viewpoint rather than their own at this stage. The aim at this stage is to reach consensus and have a draft standard which is in very good shape.
Enquiry stage – Here the national bodies are asked to consult with relevant groups. The national bodies can translate the standard at this stage. If it receives enough support at this stage the standard is published.
With the Fast Track mechanism the first four stages are done elsewhere. In our cases in the XLIFF TC. The standard then goes straight to the enquiry stage. My idea is that this should happen at the same time as the review stage at OASIS. This will give people commenting through ISO an opportunity to feed into the XLIFF development process.
XLIFF is then both an industry standard and an international standard.
I did not know about the XLIFF TC not being mentioned as a liaison member of TC 37. That is a mistake. All the voting and other documentation state the liaison is both OASIS and XLIFF TC.
I hope this explains everything. You can download the ISO directives here: http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures/iso_iec_directives_and_iso_supplement.htm if you need further information. One interesting aside is that under ISO rules XLIFF 2.0 should have been developed with 36 months and probably would be in big problems if it went beyond 48 months.
Thanks,
Peter.
From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]Sent: Wed 2012-12-12 15:57
To: Peter Reynolds
Cc: xliff-promotion; bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com
Subject: Re: Forming a Working Liaison with ISO TC37/SC5 to push XLIFF 2.0 as ISO standardPeter, can you please explain why you think that our TC needs to become an A-liaison member of SC5?I have checked and XLIFF TC is not listed as any sort of liaison with TC 37, but OASIS is.I believe that OASIS has the PAS submitter status with ISO and could submit the XLIFF 2.0 standard as a PAS, which would even mean a one month shorter approval process.I am not saying that we should not become an A-liaison member of the SC5. I am just trying to understand up and down sides of this proposed two layer liaison.If XLIFF TC becomes an A-liaison member of SC5, does that mean that all XLIFF TC members or perhaps all XLIFF TC voting members will become SC5 members with the right to appear on their meetings make motions etc? The only voting members are the national delegations, right?I will ask Bryan for a 5min ISO TC37/SC5 placeholder into the agenda for Tue, and check in the meantime with Jamie, which way to go or if OASIS do not care which way we choose.Does it sound as a plan?Thanks dF
Dr. David Filip=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSISUniversity of Limerick, Irelandtelephone: +353-6120-2781cellphone: +353-86-0222-158facsimile: +353-6120-2734mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote:
Thank you Peter, I very much appreciate your constructive approach.Now double checking a few things, and may come back to you with some questions during today or tomorrow, but all in all I foresee that I will be able to propose a related ballot as an agenda item for the main TC on Dec 18.Thanks again and cheersdFDr. David Filip=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSISUniversity of Limerick, Irelandtelephone: +353-6120-2781cellphone: +353-86-0222-158facsimile: +353-6120-2734mailto: david.filip@ul.ieOn Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Peter Reynolds <p.reynolds@maart.pl> wrote:
Hi David, All,
OK. I will not raise tension any further. I would like this ballot to happen as soon as possible.
Proposal: The OASIS XLIFF TC requests to become an A-liaison member of ISO TC 37 SC5.
Notes to proposal:
1/ The TC liaison will be appointed in pursuant to the following rules: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php/#liaisons
2/ The convention with liaisons with ISO is that OASIS makes the request for the liaison to ISO. This is what we did with the TC 37 liaison.
3/ SC 5 of ISO TC 37 is the sub-committee which deals with translation, interpreting and related technologies. The scope of SC 5 is “Standardization in the field of translation, interpreting, as well as translation and interpreting related technology, technical writing, content management, localization, globalization, internationalization.”
4/ SC5 is the committee which would be the most suitable home for XLIFF within ISO. I have already proposed to both the XLIFF and ISO TCs that this could be done using the ISO fast track procedure during the peer review stage at OASIS. This will allow for publication of XLIFF 2.0 by ISO almost immediately after publication by OASIS.
5/ If the committee agrees I will act as liaison between the XLIFF TC and SC5. Myself and Jamie Clarke are the liaisons from OASIS and XLIFF TC to TC 37.
6/ The procedure for establishing this liaison is as follows:
6.1/ We ballot and approve the proposal above.
6.2/ We inform the OASIS leadership of this. My understanding is they already know.
6.3/ We send the following email to the secretary of SC5:
*********
Subject: Request for A-liaison with ISO/TC 37 SC 5
Dear Ms. Seitl,
The XLIFF Technical Committee at OASIS hereby requests to be assigned A-liaison status with ISO Technical Committee 37 Subcommittee 5.
The XLIFF TC is a technical committee at OASIS which deals with the development of the XLIFF standard. We are currently working on XLIFF 2.0. If the vote on liaison is accepted we plan to propose this as an ISO standard.
Our members and those using XLIFF are direct stakeholders in the standards developed within TC 37/ SC 5 and are interested in being involved in the future development of international standards for the translation and interpreting industry.
Thank you for very much your kind consideration.
*********
6.4/ They will then start a ballot of SC 5 members. These are national standard bodies.
6.5/ If that gets accepted we propose a liaison and I volunteer for this.
7/ I will report to the XLIFF TC through the promotions and liaison committee when there are items to be reported but at least every two months. The chair of the P&L sub committee should schedule this.
Please get back to me with any questions.
Best regards,
Peter.
From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]Sent: Mon 2012-12-10 21:44 Subject: Re: Forming a Working Liaison with ISO TC37/SC5 to push XLIFF 2.0 as ISO standardPeter, it is too bad that you were not around when the ambiguous and badly worded sample liaison mandate was discussed and voted on. You are of course free to provide much better description of the SC5 liaison mandate.I do not find your proposal simple at all. You ask that the whole TC becomes SC5 liaison member. I am afraid this is not possible as per OASIS liaison policy. AFAIK, working liaisons can be formed on the basis of individuals with double membership. OASIS has a fast track submitter status at ISO and, according to your explanation, this basically means that the SC5 review of our spec can happen at the same time as the public review of our XLIFF TC spec (once the TC decides to push the Committee Draft to Committee Spec).Finally, if you think that P&L SC is slowing down your progress with this liaison, you are free as any other TC member to propose to Bryan a TC agenda point. I am however afraid that the TC will not be able to decide the matter of your proposal, as I find it not only ambiguous and badly worded, but totally absent.This can of course be my issue, so please bear with me.Could you please answer the following questions?1) Do you want to represent XLIFF TC on ISO TC 37 SC5?2) What will be your goal as our liaison at SC5What will be your means and responsibilities in order to achieve that goal?How often will you report on your progress back to the P&L SCWhat support from the SC and/or TC do you need to achieve the goaletc. Whatever seems relevant in order to effectively decide the matter in 5-10min of the TC timeAs I said before, I honestly do not know what to put in front of the TC based on your communications so far, but am more than happy to discuss the matter on the SC meeting Dec 18, 5pm GMT.Thanks for your understanding, consideration, and collaborationdF
Dr. David Filip=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSISUniversity of Limerick, Irelandtelephone: +353-6120-2781cellphone: +353-86-0222-158facsimile: +353-6120-2734mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Peter Reynolds <p.reynolds@maart.pl> wrote:
Hi David,
I sent you a proposal in August and resent it this month.
You asked me for more information and I sent you documents which explains the scope SC 5. I can do what you ask but I do not agree that we have sent me is a good example. My proposal is quite simple. I am suggesting that the XLIFF TC requests to be a liaison member of ISO TC 37 SC5. I am afraid I find the example you give below ambiguous, badly worded and not relevant to this situation.
I would like us to move on this proposal immediately.
Best regards,
Peter.
From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 15:12
To: Peter Reynolds; xliff-promotion
Subject: Forming a Working Liaison with ISO TC37/SC5 to push XLIFF 2.0 as ISO standard
Dear Peter,
please find linked a sample ballot by which the TC approved a working liaison, in this case
I'd like to draw your attention to the concise mandate (scope and responsibilities) as copy-pasted down below.
Do you think that you could draft an post to the P&L SC a similar concise mandate for the ISO TC37/SC5 by the end of 2012, so that XLIFF TC can have ballot on this liaison in early 2013?
Thanks for your understanding and collaboration
dF
Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
[sample mandate start]
This is a concise mandate for the liaison (to be used in an electronic ballot if seconded)
Scope (work on and facilitation of the following):
1. XLIFF TC providing business requirements to MultilingualWeb-LT, so that semantic match between the standards is secured early on.
2. Optionally, representation of MultilingualWeb-LT metadata using XLIFF 1.2
1. Having a "profile" or mutual understanding on the best practice
3. Most importantly, both groups should strive to have native representation of MultilingualWeb-LT metadata categories in XLIFF 2.0
Responsibilities:
The liaison will report to the P&L SC, which in turn reports at least monthly to XLIFF TC.
The main duties of the liaison at MultilingualWeb-LT shall be:
1) Ensure that XLIFF TC viewpoint (localization roundtrip) is well represented during the requirements gathering.
2) Follow up on queries and issues logged by XLIFF TC and its members to ensure that they are well addressed according to W3C WG process throughout draft, test suit, till final recommendation.
3) Identify and promote opportunities for common non-normative best practice notes.
[sample mandate end]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]