[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DITA Translation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: 27 August 2007
Gershon L Joseph Director of Technology and Single Sourcing Tech-Tav Documentation Ltd. Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Secretary, OASIS DITA Translation Subcommittee Member, OASIS DocBook Technical Committee +972-8-974-1569 (direct) +972-57-314-1170 (mobile) http://www.tech-tav.com
DITA Translation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: 27 August 2007 (Recorded by Gershon L Joseph <gershon@tech-tav.com>) The DITA Translation Subcommittee met on Monday 27 August 2007 at 8:00 PT for 70 minutes. 1) Roll Call Present: JoAnn Hackos (chair) Gershon Joseph Nick Rosenthal Don Day Rodolfo Raya Kara Warburton Robert Anderson 2) Accept Minutes from 13 August 2007 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/TranslationSubcommittee) Accepted by acclamation. 3) Review open action items 3.1 ACTION: Gershon to investigate whether he can use a client's samples. Gershon will assemble all the examples into the template for the TC; need to add the examples to the Multilanguage Best Practice. CONTINUED. 3.2 ACTION: Gershon and Don will present the approved best practices on indexing, conrefs, Translation Memory, and multilanguage as committee drafts for approval by the DITA Technical Committee. CONTINUED. JoAnn downloaded the Word template for OASIS white papers again. The previous template was completely corrupted. Don brought up the option of developing stylesheets for DITA to produce the OASIS white paper style. Decision to try using the new OASIS Word template. Rodolfo offered to take a stab at cleaning it up. ACTION: JoAnn to create a zip with the source content and latest Word template and post to the list. Whoever has time to try cleaning up the files will do so. 3.5 ACTION: Rodolfo will continue to work on the Best Practice for XLIFF CONTINUED. 3.6 ACTION: JoAnn will try writing the sort order addition to the indexing Best Practice for review. CONTINUED. 3.7 ACTION: JoAnn will contact Richard Ischida to get clarification on the need for a pronunciation element or attribute for the acronym proposal. CONTINUED. 4) Returning business: 4.1 Discuss the changes to Andrzej and Rodolfo's acronym proposal. See the Wiki below. Consider Andrzej's additions in response to Kara's comments. See Deborah's email. (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/TranslationSubcommittee) Discussion on the fact we need to refine the requirements for this proposal. JoAnn: What's the difference between acronym and abbreviation? Rodolfo: If you decide to expand the abbreviation the first time, it's no different from acronym. Kara: DITA is not just an authoring format, it's a CMS format. As such, we've been experienceing a critical requirement to handle texts that are smaller than phrases. Acronyms and abbreviations are a special set; proper nouns, short forms, synonyms are other special cases. This acronym proposal touches on areas that are not just for acronyms. I'm concerned we will have only partial coverage with this acronym proposal. Don: Maybe this should be under the terminologist umbrella. JoAnn: We were interested in the acronym proposal because many organizations were wanting to use conref as a mechanism to provide an acronym, to provide the flexibility to change or move the acronym in and out of a master list. I thought abbreviations might work the same way. Though many publishing groups probably dont need a well-defined list of abbreviations, where they do need a well-defined list of acronyms. So we have this issue of needing flexibility in creating and adding acronyms to text and having flexibility in online presentation. My point of view was the issue of conref and online presentation. Rodolfo: When Andrzej and I started working on this proposal, we based it on multiple DITA files with conrefs everywhere. We wanted a mechanism to publish acronyms for publishing acronyms (expanding first use) and for translation. JoAnn: Second part (aside from publishing) is can we provide a way to deal with the first instance effectively and then provide a mechanism that makes the translation of acronyms straight-forward? Especially in cases where the acronym is not translated. Don: We must give the TC an action to comment on the requirements document for the acronym proposal. Discussion... JoAnn expressed concern whether combining acronyms and these other terms is good for the general documentation community for managing terminology. JoAnn: Many users will be using a terminology database or tool. I don't see the handling of acronyms coming from a terminology point of view. They are not all usually stored inline in the document. Who is our audience at this point for the DITA spec? I think we're talking about 2 audiences: terminologist + publishing. There is some overlap. It was designed to make people aware that conreffing an acronym leads to problems in translation that people were not aware of. Moving into the terminology realm is a whole new layer of complexity beyond our previous goal of making users aware of issues they could hit in translation. The term variant is a huge jump. Will publications people looking at DITA understand the point? Don: Our input from stakeholders should include both architect and publishing sides. Kara: The proposal I put forward is not from a terminoloty perspective, it's from a translation perspective. Translators need a well-formed context for the translation. We have to extract terms for tranlation in order to pretranslate terminology before the documentation is ready to be translated. All we are asking is for the writer to identify "this is a sentence that is meaningful to this term". This is new territory in content management that authors need to be aware of. Markup of terminolgy and inline definitions is new, and it's important we support this in DITA. Don suggested an action for us to make certain the wording in which we frame the scope of this requirement document sets the background that Kara just set. How big do we want this idea to go? I'd like to put the requirements in front of the TC tomorrow and take a week to make sure everyone has had a chance to address the scope of the requirements, and then another week to work on the actual requirements. JoAnn: Is our scope definition ready to take to the TC? Robert: We have to agree on requirements. I feel the next step is to ask the TC to proposse requirements. We should ask the TC to add requirements to the list. JoAnn: I'd like to at least go and explain what and why the term variant is there. ACTION: Robert to edit the list of requirements to clarify ahead of tomorrow's TC meeting so that the TC can be asked to review and add/modify reqs as needed. -- over time; meeting adjourned -- 4.2 Continue discussion of Deborah Pickett's thoughts on the ruby attribute 4.2 Discuss Rodolfo's proposed additions to the Indexing best practice. http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/TranslationSubcommittee DEFERRED to next meeting. 5) New Business 5.1 Comment on the W3C working draft. A W3C working draft document entitled "Best Practices for XML Internationalization" was published last week. It includes a section on DITA at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xml-i18n-bp-20070628/#dita DEFERRED to next meeting. 5.2 Continue consideration of the ruby attribute Some discussion has begun on the yahoo group about the ruby attribute. See Deborah Pickett's notes.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]