Meeting Minutes 4/13/2004

["John Reid" <JREID@novell.com>]

1. Roll Call
- Magnus, Andrzej, Eiju, John, Gérard, Tony

2. Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting
- John moved, all approved

3. Open Action Items from previous meetings
-Reviewed open Action Items from previous meetings:
Action Items
    * Tony: To look at what we did to XLIFF for making "embedded XLIFF" possible, so we could see for TMX and SRX have also such capabilities.
       - Not done, to carry for next meeting.
       - Gérard thinks SRX was made to be embedded and requires no other action. He will confirm.
    * Yves: To drive effort in OSCAR to make TMX a useable namespace if it's not already one.
       - Not done, to carry for next meeting.
    * Andrezj will start a  thread adressing his issues on segmentation by filters.
       - Done.
    * Tony will start a thread addressing his issues with the proposed segmentation structure.
       - Email sent just prior to this meeting.
    * All should address TM updating.
       - No action, to carry for next meeting.
    * All should address workflow variations that can affect segmentation.
       - No action, to carry for next meeting.
    * Christian will start a thread on the different views of segmentation held by the group.
       - Done
    * Magnus will change the schedule to meet every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month.
       - Done

4. Work in progress:
4.a) Discussion threads from last meeting:
4.a.i)   Definition of Segment and Segmentation
- Magnus suggested segment definition as "text based data that is linguistically suitable for translation". There was a lot of discussion about this. Some improvements suggested were to add a statement about segments relationship with TM and/or databases, reference to sentence as the logical segment, and that "text based" should not exclude non-textual data. it was suggested that defining segment and segmentation was unnecessary. We looked at SRX and they have not defined those terms. There is also a need to know, other than the rules for segmentation, the how the text was parsed - "what was it parsed for?"
- The discussion points are 1. "text based data" is not clear and 2. what is meant by "linguistically suitable for translation"?
AI: Magnus will post modified definitions for both segment and segmentation.

4.a.ii)  Explicit XLIFF Segment representation vs. Multiply Converted XLIFF
- Reviewed thread between Magnus and Andrzej. There was a lot of discussion on this, too. 
AI: Andrzej will respond to latest email from from Magnus.

The following agenda items were not addressed:
4.a.iii) Handling Segmentation Changes
4.b) Scenarios
4.c) Use Cases
4.d) Implementation Options
5. Any Other Business

Action Items:
    * Tony: To look at what we did to XLIFF for making "embedded XLIFF" possible, so we could see for TMX and SRX have also such capabilities.
       - Gérard thinks SRX was made to be embedded and requires no other action. He will confirm.
    * Yves: To drive effort in OSCAR to make TMX a useable namespace if it's not already one.
    * All should address TM updating.
    * All should address workflow variations that can affect segmentation.
    * Magnus will post modified definitions for both segment and segmentation.
    * Andrzej will respond to latest email from from Magnus.




---------------------------------------------------
J o h n  R e i d

Localization Tools
Novell, Inc.

JREID@novell.com 

801/861-3855        ( Voice)
801/861-2754        ( Fax )
----------------------------------------------------