[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DITA Translation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: 25 September 2006
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
Comtech Services, Inc.
DITA Translation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: 25 September 2006 (Recorded by JOAnn Hackos <firstname.lastname@example.org>) The DITA Translation Subcommittee met on Monday, 25 September 2006 at 08:00am PT for 60 minutes. 1. Roll call Present: JoAnn Hackos Robert Anderson Bob Doyle (observing) Andrzej Zydron Kevin Farwell Don Day Nancy Harrison Dave Walters Regrets: Gershon Joseph 2. Accept Minutes from 18 August 2006 Accepted. 3. Review open action items --ACTION-- Next draft of the best practice for legacy TM (Gershon Joseph) CONTINUE. [JoAnn will revise Gershons's draft based on Kevin's comments and responses from Andrzej] --ACTION-- Nancy Harrison to work on examples of multi-language documents this week and we'll formulate a definition next meeting. CONTINUE. --ACTION-- Andrzej develop a conref best practice document CONTINUE. Andrzej sent updated draft to list. 4. Returning business: 4.1 Reviewed Kevin's comments on Gershon's draft of the best practice for legacy TM. Considered the issue referring to particular tools rather than those that are part of the open standards. Andrzej mentioned that he believes all major tools support the standards, including TMX. Kevin asked why TMX is necessary. Don agreed, suggeting that we not recommend something that is not necessary. Point is that one does not need TMX if there is no interchange between localization vendors' memories occurring. Rodolfo, we would need to rewrite the best practice if our goal is so general. Don suggests that we can state the general case without tols and state the way the TM could be preserved with open standards. Kevin -- stress that the process can be used in serveral ways. TMX is the standard-based process. Nancy -- are we clear about who is the audience of this document? JoAnn -- believes the audience is publications managers and localization managers who are concerned about losing their asset in TM if they more to the DITA standard. Title is not clearly stating that this is about using open standards. We recommend open standards because of practical reasons: 1) vendor independent 2) reduce costs 3) increased portability between vendors 4) enhances choice of vendors Kevin Trados and SMS support XLIFF but do not have native support. We are recommending steps that aren't necessary. Don't have to convert DITA to XLIFF to get it into Trados. Dave W -- Remember that we're recommending a "one-shot deal" -- 1) deal with what a company has now 2) what are the other options available 3) write a section on the general process 4) then a section on the process using standards Kevin -- believe that the audience should have some experience with TM already. TM tool may use no standards yet still can use a process to preserve the TM. Andrzej -- what if the system is completely closed? Nancy -- predicate the existence of transforms from proprietary systems to DITA. Andrzej -- results may vary with proprietary systems. May even encounter some need for experimentation. By exporting data, you can make a more informed judgment about the quality of the results. Decision -- JoAnn will revise Gershon's draft and send out for comments next week. ----