[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DITA Translation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: 4 February 2007
Apologies, I attached the wrong minutes. These are the ones I meant to attach. 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 ----- Original Message ---- > From: Gershon L Joseph <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: DITA Translation SC <email@example.com> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Sukumar.Munshi@lionbridge.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Howard.Schwartz@trados.com; firstname.lastname@example.org > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:20:31 PM > Subject: DITA Translation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: 4 February 2007 > > Hi > all, > > Please > note > that > our > next > meeting > will > be > on > Monday > 25 > February > at > the > usual > time > (8:00 > PT). > > 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 > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > DITA > Technical > Committee > Meeting > Minutes: > 12 > February > 2008 > > Chaired > by > Don > Day > > Minutes > recorded > by > Gershon > Joseph > > > The > DITA > Technical > Committee > met > on > Tuesday, > 12 > February > 2008 > at > 08:00am > PT > for > 60 > minutes. > > 1. > Roll > call > > > > We > have > quorum. > > 2. > Approve > minutes > from > previous > business > meeting: > > > * > date > : > 5 > February > 2008 > > > * > URL > : > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200802/msg00016.html > > > > > Accepted > by > acclamation. > > 3. > Business: > > > > 1. > Previously > posted > Translation > SC > documents--ready > for > approval > next > week? > > > > > > 1. > ITEM: > Discussion > of > "Best > Practice > for > Using > the > DITA > Conref > Attribute > for > Translation" > > > > > > > url > > : > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200710/msg00052.html > > > > > > > > lead > : > Hackos > > > > > > > notes > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > ACTION: > Gershon > to > check > with > JoAnn > for > latest > version > of > doc > and > > > > > > > forward > link > to > TC. > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > ITEM: > Discussion > of > "Indexing > Best > Practice > White > Paper" > > > > > > > url > > : > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27049/IndexingBestPracticesWhi > tePaper.doc > > > > > > > > lead > : > Hackos > > > > > > > notes > : > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200802/msg00009.html > (Grosso) > > > > > > > > > > > > > ACTION: > Gershon > to > check > with > joAnn > re > latest > version > and > addressing > > > > > > > of > Paul's > message. > > > > 2. > ITEM: > Need > Clarification > on > Implications > of > Different > List > Markup > Patterns > > > > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200802/msg00011.html > > > > > > (Kimber, > no > follow > up) > > > > > > > > > Erik: > Gershon > asked > is > there > a > way > to > provide > tighter > topic > DTDs > by > default > > > > > > > > > Discussion > on > whether > the > existing > DTDs > are > really > "bad"... > > > > > > > > > Michael: > I > don't > want > to > say > current > topic > types > are > useful > only > for > > > > > specialization, > but > I > agree > there's > a > need > for > tighter > DTDs. > > > > > > > > > Jeff: > Add > text > that > some > organizations > may > want > to > enforce > enforce > a > > > > > stricter > content > model > than > the > default > topic > types, > and > they > can > use > > > > > the > constraints > mechanism > to > achieve > that. > > > > > > > > > Don > suggested > we > provide > tutorial > on > how > to > specialize > a > DTD > via > > > > > constraints > for > office > memos. > > > > > > > > > Discussion... > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > encouraged > Gershon/Eliot/etc > to > submit > issues > we > want > to > raise > in > > > > > the > 1.3 > spec. > > > > > Someone > can > take > on > the > task > of > trying > to > find > a > spot > where > people > can > > > > > submit > DTDs/tutorials/samples/etc > outside > of > the > standards > process > but > > > > > where > they > could > be > shared. > > > > > > > > > Michael: > That's > what > dita.xml.org > is > for. > > > > > > > > > ACTION: > Gershon > to > add > a > placeholder > for > requirements > (and > later > > > > > specializations) > for > more > constrained > version > of > the > DITA > topics. > > > > > (Gershon > noted > he's > under > workload > pressure > and > it > will > likely > take > him > > > > > a > while > to > get > to > this > AI.) > > > > 3. > ITEM: > Organization > of > the > DITA > Specification > > > > > > > > > 1. > OASIS > on > statements > of > use > vs > implementations > > > > > > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200802/msg00021.html > > > > > > > > (Day) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don > mentioned > that > "statement > of > use" > should > be > used > instead > of > > > > > > > "endorsement". > > > > > > > OASIS > requires > 3 > uses > or > 3 > organizations, > as > long > as > we > provide > 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff: > OASIS > wants > uses, > and > does > not > care > if > it's > organizations > or > > > > > > > implementations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > stressed > that > we > must > get > uses > of > new > spec > features. > > > > > > 2. > Conformance > and > Feature > Optionality/Flexibility > > > > > > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200802/msg00013.html > > > > > > > > (Ogden > and > following) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Revisit > next > week. > Continue > on-list. > > > > > > 3. > ITEM: > Rethinking > the > DITA > Reference > Docs > > > > > > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200802/msg00014.html > > > > > > > > (Kimber > and > following) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Revisit > next > week. > Continue > on-list. > > > > 4. > Please > continue > discussion > on > the > list > about > "Test > Environment > for > SC > business" > > 4. > Announcements/Opens > > >
DITA Translation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: 4 February 2007 Chaired by JoAnn Hackos <email@example.com> Minutes recorded by Gershon Joseph <firstname.lastname@example.org> The DITA Translation Subcommittee met on Monday 4 February 2007 at 8:00 PT for 60 minutes. 1) Roll Call Present: JoAnn Hackos (chair) Gershon Joseph Don Day Robert Anderson Rodolfo Raya Andrzej Zydron Kara Warburton Jeff Ogden Regrets: Nick Rosenthal 2) Accept Minutes from previous business meeting Accepted by acclamation. 3) New Business: 1. Discuss changes to glossary proposal to accomodate acronyms Gershon raised concerns about users' ability to work it. It's very complex. Rodolfo: The elements are fine, but the mixture of terminology management is an issue. Don suggested a best practice for translating acronyms. Robert: With either the original proposal or this new combined one, 99% of the time authors will be dealing with the inline <abbreviated-term> element; the acronyms are a 1-time setup. Rodolfo: The problem is the use of new glossary markup for supporting terminology databases. Kara clarified it's not for terminology management. It's to extract information from these glossary elements into other applications like terminology dictionaries; thus parts of speech etc. are necessary. Rodolfo has concerns that the parts of speech etc. is insufficient -- either we support everything or nothing; but not partially support what terminology databases need. The SC was informed that Eric and Kara discussed that there is no standard and therefore the standard enumeration is extensible or replaceable. JoAnn: You would need to specialize to extend. Rodolfo: Give this as an example, not as part of the spec. Robert: The spec won't have any values as part of the spec. Jeff: My understanding is that controled values is separate and the DTD declaration has to be liberal so that you can use the Controled Values feature to define the enumeration. JoAnn: If we enumerate values then they have to be there? The other issue Robert is referring to is that part of speech changes depending on language. e.g. noun in English could be something else in Spanish. Rodolfo confirmed this is the case. JoAnn: That's why we need to be aware of what the translator is expected to do. Rodolfo confirmed this is beyond what we can expect translators to do. JoAnn: This proposal has become very complex including acronyms, glossary, terminology and more and Gershon and I are concerned it's too complex for users to handle. Kara: The list of parts-of-speech values are suggested by studies of industry of what is included in glossaries. As far as translations go, the part of speech can change for some languages, but it's not often this happens. The translator can put a verb in the translation and if they don't change the part of speech it's not going to impact the published content; it will only affect the downstream process if you do terminology management. Rodolfo: When dealing with acronyms, you don't need a whole set of elements in this proposal. The text about the "keeping terminology databases..." use case is listed in the document and not supported by the proposal. In order to do so, they must be clearly defined, which they are not. Kara: We don't want to overburden the writer with things they don't need. We only want the essential pieces of data they need. Rodolfo: The use cases and goals of the requirements are not addressed. That's my concern. The SC confirmed that the acronym part of the proposal is fine; the parts the SC is objecting to is the glossary part. Don raised a concern that we don't want a proposal that's too defined; we should rather define a more general spec that users can refine down-stream. We're at the point now that we must either accept it as-is in 1.2 or leave it out of 1.2 and go through the design again in the future. JoAnn ran a straw poll: Gershon Joseph : I accept this proposal only with extensive best practice docs; otherwise I reject it. Don Day : positive vote Robert Anderson : positive vote Rodolfo Raya : 1/2 [acronyms] is fine for me; 1/2 is not Andrzej Zydron : I agree with Gershon Kara Warburton : positive vote and get specific feedback on problems so that we can address them Jeff Ogden : positive vote JoAnn asked if we can confirm the Controled Values feature will be used here for the list of terminology management items. Rodolfo emphasised it's talking about generating terminology database. This is the issue I have with the current proposal. Robert: Eric wrote this and he's not familiar with terminology management; so it would be in there by mistake and we must remove such statements from the proposal; they should not go into the spec. JoAnn asked Rodolfo and other SC members to supply feedback on the spec wording and discuss this issue with Eric and refine the wording. JoAnn: We can go ahead and vote on this in the TC meeting tomorrow. 2. Acronym and glossary best practices The acronym BP is in process. JoAnn will try to organize a draft BP from the various discussions that have happened. JoAnn asked Kara to take a stab at the first draft on a BP using glossary for translations. JoAnn confirmed that these 2 BPs will not be relevant until DITA 1.2 goes out. 4) Returning business: 4.1 Best practices for TC consideration 1. Conref JoAnn: We want to get the conref best practice on the DITA TC's consideration. Put out URL and let's get this running on the TC. 2. Indexing JoAnn sent out 1 small revision on the indexing best practice. A page had a note about a reference to an example that's not referenced. JoAnn to check. 3. Multilang Gershon to check the examples. 5. Open Don asked us to change the week we meet to the other week. Our next meeting will be on 25 Feb.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]