RE: [xliff] Groups - Event "XLIFF TC Call" added

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Date: Tuesday, 06 December 2011, 11:00am - 12:00pm ET
Summary

=== 1/ Roll call

Presents: Yves, Bryan, David-F, Rodolfo, Helena, Fredrik, Tom, Shirley, Joachim, Christian, Peter, Steven, David-W,
Paul Leahy (Oracle), Victor Amaya (Oracle), Angshuman Deb (IBM)


=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 14 November 2011 meeting minutes:
 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201111/msg00066.html

Bryan moves to accept the minutes.
Rodolfo seconds.
No dissent.

New members:

Oracle is back in the TC with Paul and Victor (in Ireland both)


=== 3/ Sub Committee Reports

1. Inline text (Yves)

Summary: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201111/msg00003.html
Next meeting is next week: we'll decide on type of codes (pc vs sc/ec/ /etc.)


2. XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC Charter (David)
a. Lucía tool survey
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XLIFFSupport

No meeting last time.
Lucía may have finalized the survey.
Will be close on Dec-15.
Nothing else to report.

Bryan: we do have a L&C SC meeting today after this meeting.


===
4/ XLIFF 2.0 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
Note: Rodolfo has been busy adding items to SVN

Formal procedure to add feature.
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking
then move to approved features.


> a. Core vs. Module - ready to vote? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201111/msg00081.html

Some email discussions done.
Possibly ready for vote.
Arle & Rodolfo have a proposal ready.

Rodolfo: Move to vote on this definition.
David-F: Scenario is extract/translate/merge, right?
Rodolfo: Minimum set of elements to allow those steps. Basically: allow round-trip.
Bryan: So 1 unit as 1 source and 0 or 1 target. One can have only a source and be compliant
Rodolfo: Yes, translation can be added using different processes
David-F: So target is option when extracting, but mandatory for merge?
Rodolfo: No, you can use source to merge back
David-F: So only those 3 parts are part of the core in that definition.
There are more possible approaches
e.g. look at all XLIFF agents and look at the minimal set of construct need for those.
Rodolfo: so you want to change the proposal?
David-F: not necessarily. Just want to be sure the TC understand it.
Think we have not had enough time.
Sorry I didn't enter the discussion before.
Helena: we had this discussion the last 2 meetings. We made it clear to finalize this today if possible.
Can be changed later. But need to start somewhere.
Rodolfo: are we ready to vote on the proposal?
Bryan: I did began to second. But is there a risk that we are missing something?
David-F: Yes.
In diagram I circulated, there is 7 possible XLIFF agents. The proposal targets only 3 of the areas.
Other approach is to look at the 7 area and use the minimal set to cover those areas.
Using this proposal it means we may need to change it later.
Rodolfo: withdraw my motion to vote on this.
Let's wait for David-F's proposal.
Joachim: looking at the diagram. Which area don't work with the proposal?
e.g. for review we would need additional attributes/etc.
But wouldn't it be easier to start with a sub-set?
Rodolfo: maybe because only we have 3 processes approved.
Rodolfo: proposal was withdrawn
David-W: move to vote on the Rodolfo/Arle proposal
Tom: second the motion.

Ballot: yes=10 no=2
The motion passed.
Text of the motion is here:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201111/msg00081.html


=== 5/ Current XLIFF business

Note: Moved some items to P & L SC; some remaining things need TC approval to move
1. XLIFF and TM, Glossary, Segmentation Rules (Christian)
  
Note: shall we move this to Technical Issues for XLIFF 2.0 wiki page (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#TechnicalIssuesforXLIFF2.0)?

(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201105/msg00043.html)
- - Need a full discussion on this topic (Peter)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201105/msg00047.html)

Christian: question was about the charter of the TC.
What are we allowed to work on.
e.g. can we work on representation of glossary data, etc.
didn't think we had the mandate for that.
And should we collaborate with other entities on this.
Rodolfo: Yves and Helena did work on segmentation
We also have some work on glossary/etc.
No issue about lack of resources to work on it.
Christian: possibility to represent something doesn't mean it's a general solution for the community.
e.g. TBX vs glossaries
Rodolfo: TBX represent terminology db.
We had glossary in previous versions of xliff
Christian: TBX can be used for glossary
Rodolfo: TBX doesn't have schema.
Christain: RelaxNG is there
Rodolfo: but it's not complete
Christian: the point is to have an orchestration of the overall standards.
Peter: input from TAUS' users was to have a single standard
Rodolfo has a point from a tool provider viewpoint: TBX is hard to implement, so XLIFF can provide something more basic.
What Paul & victor thing of this?

Bryan: we are at the top of the hour. We need to get that answer later.
Should this item be moved to another SC or stay here.
-> issue tabled for now.
Rodolfo: it's already item 21 in wiki.
The question is: Should it be dropped or move to specification?



=== 6/ New Business

Any new business?
None

-done