Re: [EXT] RE: [cti] Changes to Language Content

[Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>]

Ryu, et al., 

Thanks for that.  I am wondering then, who requested that property?  I thought it was Fujitsu.  If no one has requested it, and it was added because we thought it might be needed, then we might want to drop it for now.  We can always add it later if people actually need it.  

My personal opinion is we should not add things that people are not going to use or do not have a need for.

Bret

---

From: masuoka.ryusuke@fujitsu.com <masuoka.ryusuke@fujitsu.com>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 7:08:26 PM
To: 'Allan Thomson'; Bret Jordan; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [EXT] RE: [cti] Changes to Language Content

 

Hi, Allan, Bret,

 

I am not the one who proposed to include object_modified nor the one who said

it should be optional, but I understand the rationale behind both of them.

 

I understand that object_modified by is necessary when the object is rewritten

substantially (ex. when much better understanding of the attack has been obtained).

However, I understand that an object can be updated without changing its text properties,

thus making object_modified optional.

(I am not sure my understanding is correct. Please add/comment on it.)

 

> I think a simple statement saying that a consumer can ignore this optional property if it so chooses is fine.

 

I think that this (mentioning a consumer can ignore this optional property) is up to the implementers

and that this may be part of interoperability documents, not standard documents.

I believe that the standard document should make very clear the meaning and/or rationale behind the

decision (ex. why it is decided optional, not required) and that we should leave how to deal

with it to the implementers.

 

Regards,

 

Ryu

 

From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Allan Thomson
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:30 AM
To: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Masuoka, Ryusuke/益岡 竜介 <masuoka.ryusuke@fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [cti] Changes to Language Content

 

Although I prefer that this property be removed completely, in the spirit of making progress towards closing down 2.1 specification -> I’m fine making this property optional.

 

As with any optionally defined features we should be clear on what is means to a consumer when receiving content that has this property defined but the consumer either does not have the version of object referenced nor cares about the version but rather just the object itself (regardless of version).

 

I think a simple statement saying that a consumer can ignore this optional property if it so chooses is fine.

 

Allan

 

From: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 12:41 PM
To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "masuoka.ryusuke@jp.fujitsu.com" <masuoka.ryusuke@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: [cti] Changes to Language Content

 

All,

 

We have several topics to address tomorrow during the working call.  The most notable is a change to the Language Content object.

 

The change being proposed is to make the "object_modified" property optional instead of required. This will still allow organizations to pin a translation to a specific version, but will also allow organizations to say the translation should be good for all versions.  If you have an opinion on this topic, please either send it to the email list or join the call tomorrow. 

 

Thanks,

 

Bret