Re: [cti] i18n (RE: MVP Discussion) - An Updated Proposal

[John-Mark Gurney <jmg@newcontext.com>]

Masuoka, Ryusuke wrote this message on Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:59 +0000:
> > I would say that the lang id is not the language of the text, but who it is intended for..  
> > If the "Japanese" translation happens to be in English, 
> > then that is fine to label it was jp if that is the way they want it presented...
> 
> > So, your example would have jp as the language for the title too..
> 
> I am not exactly sure what you mean, but "en" means the title is 
> in English language, not its intended audience/consumers.
> Title (as a short text) in English would be understood by many Japanese
> and English speaking people. (That is the reason why title can be English
> even though it is produced by a Japanese CTI producer in this use case.)

I'm thinking about how implementers are going to work w/ this.

It's all fine and dandy to say each field has it's own language, but
the question is, if you get a jp TLO, w/ a field in en, that doesn't
have an jp field, what are you suppose to do?  What happens if en
isn't in their list of desired/prefered languages?  Do they just not
display the en field?

Then you get into database management.  It'd be much easier to
simply index your database by the tuple of id/lang w/ a field to
denote if this row is a translation [object] or the original TLO.
When you query the db for what to display, you query by id, w/ an
order by lang and take the first one...

Then what happens when you encounter the following object (btw, I'm
not proposing this method, just using it as an example):
{ "type": "obj",
  "id": "obj--1",
  "title": { "en": "en title" },
  "description": {"jp": "jp desc" }
}

{ "type": "translation",
  "of_ref": "obj--1",
  "title": { "jp": "jp title" },
  "description": {"en": "en desc" }
}

Do you really think it's sane to always present a mix between the two
objects?  The above looks crazy to me, but w/ the above would be legal,
and have to be delt w/ by products...

IMO, if we don't choose a sane balance between implementable, and
i18n, we'll have a problem where few products decide that i18n is worth
to issues to implement it unless it's a strong requirement..

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John-Mark Gurney [mailto:jmg@newcontext.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:17 AM
> To: Masuoka, Ryusuke/益岡 竜介
> Cc: Jordan, Bret; Wunder, John A.; Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/DCCI; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [cti] i18n (RE: MVP Discussion) - An Updated Proposal
> 
> Masuoka, Ryusuke wrote this message on Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:21 +0000:
> > Hi, John, Bret,
> > 
> > -----
> > Use Case (1) Second Paragraph
> > -----
> > > Or another use case is the CTI provider in Japan writes a CTI file 
> > > with its title in English and description in Japanese. This is 
> > > because many Japanese can read short English titles, but many 
> > > Japanese have difficulties to understand long and detailed descriptions in English.
> > 
> > In the above case, I am talking about is something like the following.
> > 
> > -----
> > {
> > "type": "package",
> > “indicators": [
> > {
> >    "type": “indicator",
> >    "id": "indicator--a1201df6-c352-4a81-9c7c-5a6f896a4e31",
> >    "revision": 1,
> >    "created_at": "2015-12-03T13:13Z",
> >    "created_by_ref": "identity--69a17e1b-bb45-4657-9a9d-96db3faccdde",
> >    "title": {“en”: "Dridex Campaign - Botnet 121"},
> >    “description": {“ja”: "ボットネット 121 を活用する Dridex を元にしたキャンペーン"}
> > },
> > ...
> > }
> > -----
> > 
> > It is often the case for academic papers that we (Japanese) provide 
> > its title and abstract in English, but its main body in Japanese.
> 
> I would say that the lang id is not the language of the text, but who it is intended for..  If the "Japanese" translation happens to be in English, then that is fine to label it was jp if that is the way they want it presented...
> 
> So, your example would have jp as the language for the title too..
> 
> There wouldn't be anything that would prevent someone creating a new translation object that completes the jp translation of the title...
> 
> I do like the proposal of being able to override the lang on a per field basis, but IMO, unneeded, per above.
> 
> Another way to state it is that the lang id field is who to present the text of this object to...  If you speak jp, then present these fields to them, etc.  It seems odd/crazy that we should allow an object to be created where different parts of the object are not present for which we need to present it to the user of that language...
> 
> In your example, is there a reason the program needs to know that the en title is in English?  It clearly doesn't need the info for rendering it, as that is already encoded via the Unicode characters..

-- 
John-Mark