Re: Forming a Working Liaison with ISO TC37/SC5 to push XLIFF 2.0 as ISO standard

["Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>]

Dear Jamie, happy 2013,

I'd like to draw your attention to the forwarded questions below that
I asked back in December.
While Chet confirmed that only final OASIS standard can be submitted
to any external standardization body, the question whether we should
make a PAS or a fast track submission with XLIFF 2.0 is still open.
Would you please advise what is the best course of action sanctioned
by OASIS (more detailed question in the forwarded e-mail below). I
understand that for a fast track submission we would need to form an
A-liaison between XLIFF TC and a ISO TC37 SC, I am not quite sure what
would be the process in case of a PAS submission. Anyway I guess both
ways need to go though OASIS Board, right?

Thanks and regards
dF

Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote:
> Daer Jamie, Chet,
>
> XLIFF TC is about to produce Committee Draft of XLIFF 2.0 in early 2013. In
> this connection, XLIFF Promotion and Liaison Subcommittee has been
> discussing how to best put XLIFF 2.0 on ISO standardization track.
>
> Peter Reynolds proposed to the SC to make XLIFF TC an A-liaison of TC37/SC5,
> so that it can make a fast track submission. I understand that this would
> mean a submission at the DIS/Enquiry stage.
>
> AFAIK, there is an alternative, i.e. OASIS submitting XLIFF 2.0 as a PAS to
> the appropriate ISO TC/SC.
>
> Now I need to ask you for your opinions, advice, clarifications.
>
> - Are the above outlined tracks real options, or do I miss something?
>
> - Are there any caveats based on your experience connected to either course
> of action?
> Is an A-liaison membership of XLIFF TC in an appropriate ISO TC/SC necessary
> for either of the submission types?
>
> - Do you think that TC37/SC5 is the right venue for socializing XLIFF 2.0
> with ISO?
>
> - Finally my understanding is that (according to both OASIS and ISO
> policies) only final OASIS standards can be submitted either as PAS or fast
> track submissions to ISO. So is it really possible to run the OASIS public
> review and the ISO SC5 DIS review (Enquiry) at the same time?
>
> Based on your opinions re the above questions, what should be our next step
> towards OASIS towards either PAS submission through OASIS or fast track
> submission through XLIFF TC A-liaison membership in a TC or SC, most
> probably TC37/SC5?
>
> Thanks in advance for your answers and consideration
> dF
>
> Dr. David Filip
> =======================
> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
> University of Limerick, Ireland
> telephone: +353-6120-2781
> cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
> Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Forming a Working Liaison with ISO TC37/SC5 to push XLIFF 2.0
> as ISO standard
> To: Peter Reynolds <p.reynolds@maart.pl>
> Cc: xliff-promotion <xliff-promotion@lists.oasis-open.org>,
> bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com
>
>
> Peter, can you please explain why you think that our TC needs to become an
> A-liaison member of SC5?
> I have checked and XLIFF TC is not listed as any sort of liaison with TC 37,
> but OASIS is.
>
> I believe that OASIS has the PAS submitter status with ISO and could submit
> the XLIFF 2.0 standard as a PAS,  which would even mean a one month shorter
> approval process.
>
> I am not saying that we should not become an A-liaison member of the SC5. I
> am just trying to understand up and down sides of this proposed two layer
> liaison.
>
> If XLIFF TC becomes an A-liaison member of SC5, does that mean that all
> XLIFF TC members  or perhaps all XLIFF TC voting members will become SC5
> members with the right to appear on their meetings make motions etc? The
> only voting members are the national delegations, right?
>
> I will ask Bryan for a 5min ISO TC37/SC5 placeholder into the agenda for
> Tue, and check in the meantime with Jamie, which way to go or if OASIS do
> not care which way we choose.
>
> Does it sound as a plan?
> Thanks dF
>
> Dr. David Filip
> =======================
> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
> University of Limerick, Ireland
> telephone: +353-6120-2781
> cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Peter, I very much appreciate your constructive approach.
>> Now double checking a few things, and may come back to you with some
>> questions during today or tomorrow, but all in all I foresee that I will be
>> able to propose a related ballot as an agenda item for the main TC on Dec
>> 18.
>>
>> Thanks again and cheers
>> dF
>>
>> Dr. David Filip
>> =======================
>> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
>> University of Limerick, Ireland
>> telephone: +353-6120-2781
>> cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
>> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
>> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Peter Reynolds <p.reynolds@maart.pl>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David, All,
>>>
>>> OK. I will not raise tension any further. I would like this ballot to
>>> happen as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Proposal: The OASIS XLIFF TC requests to become an A-liaison member of
>>> ISO TC 37 SC5.
>>>
>>> Notes to proposal:
>>>
>>> 1/ The TC liaison will be appointed in pursuant to the following rules:
>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php/#liaisons
>>>
>>> 2/ The convention with liaisons with ISO is that OASIS makes the request
>>> for the liaison to ISO. This is what we did with the TC 37 liaison.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3/ SC 5 of ISO TC 37 is the sub-committee which deals with translation,
>>> interpreting and related technologies. The scope of SC 5 is “Standardization
>>> in the field of translation, interpreting, as well as translation and
>>> interpreting related technology, technical writing, content management,
>>> localization, globalization, internationalization.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4/ SC5 is the committee which would be the most suitable home for XLIFF
>>> within ISO. I have already proposed to both the XLIFF and ISO TCs that this
>>> could be done using the ISO fast track procedure during the peer review
>>> stage at OASIS. This will allow for publication of XLIFF 2.0 by ISO almost
>>> immediately after publication by OASIS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5/ If the committee agrees I will act as liaison between the XLIFF TC and
>>> SC5. Myself and Jamie Clarke are the liaisons from OASIS and XLIFF TC to TC
>>> 37.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6/ The procedure for establishing this liaison is as follows:
>>>
>>> 6.1/ We ballot and approve the proposal above.
>>>
>>> 6.2/ We inform the OASIS leadership of this. My understanding is they
>>> already know.
>>>
>>> 6.3/ We send the following email to the secretary of SC5:
>>>
>>> *********
>>>
>>> Subject: Request for A-liaison with ISO/TC 37 SC 5
>>>
>>> Dear Ms. Seitl,
>>>
>>> The XLIFF Technical Committee at OASIS hereby requests to be assigned
>>> A-liaison status with ISO Technical Committee 37 Subcommittee 5.
>>>
>>> The XLIFF TC is a technical committee at OASIS which deals with the
>>> development of the XLIFF standard. We are currently working on XLIFF 2.0. If
>>> the vote on liaison is accepted we plan to propose this as an ISO standard.
>>>
>>> Our members and those using XLIFF are direct stakeholders in the
>>> standards developed within TC 37/ SC 5 and are interested in being involved
>>> in the future development of international standards for the translation and
>>> interpreting industry.
>>>
>>> Thank you for very much your kind consideration.
>>>
>>> *********
>>>
>>> 6.4/ They will then start a ballot of SC 5 members. These are national
>>> standard bodies.
>>>
>>> 6.5/ If that gets accepted we propose a liaison and I volunteer for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7/ I will report to the XLIFF TC through the promotions and liaison
>>> committee when there are items to be reported but at least every two months.
>>> The chair of the P&L sub committee should schedule this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please get back to me with any questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter.
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
>>> Sent: Mon 2012-12-10 21:44
>>>
>>> To: Peter Reynolds
>>> Cc: xliff-promotion; bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com
>>> Subject: Re: Forming a Working Liaison with ISO TC37/SC5 to push XLIFF
>>> 2.0 as ISO standard
>>>
>>> Peter, it is too bad that you were not around when the ambiguous and
>>> badly worded sample liaison mandate was discussed and voted on. You are of
>>> course free to provide much better description of the SC5 liaison mandate.
>>>
>>> I do not find your proposal simple at all. You ask that the whole TC
>>> becomes SC5 liaison member. I am afraid this is not possible as per OASIS
>>> liaison policy. AFAIK, working liaisons can be formed on the basis of
>>> individuals with double membership. OASIS has a fast track submitter status
>>> at ISO and, according to your explanation, this basically means that the SC5
>>> review of our spec can happen at the same time as the public review of our
>>> XLIFF TC spec (once the TC decides to push the Committee Draft to Committee
>>> Spec).
>>>
>>> Finally, if you think that P&L SC is slowing down your progress with this
>>> liaison, you are free as any other TC member to propose to Bryan a TC agenda
>>> point. I am however afraid that the TC will not be able to decide the matter
>>> of your proposal, as I find it not only ambiguous and badly worded, but
>>> totally absent.
>>> This can of course be my issue, so please bear with me.
>>>
>>> Could you please answer the following questions?
>>> 1) Do you want to represent XLIFF TC on ISO TC 37 SC5?
>>> 2) What will be your goal as our liaison at SC5
>>> What will be your means and responsibilities in order to achieve that
>>> goal?
>>> How often will you report on your progress back to the P&L SC
>>> What support from the SC and/or TC do you need to achieve the goal
>>> etc. Whatever seems relevant in order to effectively decide the matter in
>>> 5-10min of the TC time
>>>
>>> As I said before, I honestly do not know what to put in front of the TC
>>> based on your communications so far, but am more than happy to discuss the
>>> matter on the SC meeting Dec 18, 5pm GMT.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your understanding, consideration, and collaboration
>>> dF
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. David Filip
>>> =======================
>>> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
>>> University of Limerick, Ireland
>>> telephone: +353-6120-2781
>>> cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
>>> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
>>> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Peter Reynolds <p.reynolds@maart.pl>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I sent you a proposal in August and resent it this month.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You asked me for more information and I sent you documents which
>>>> explains the scope SC 5.  I can do what you ask but I do not agree that we
>>>> have sent me is a good example. My proposal is quite simple. I am suggesting
>>>> that the XLIFF TC requests to be a liaison member of ISO TC 37 SC5. I am
>>>> afraid I find the example you give below ambiguous, badly worded and not
>>>> relevant to this situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like us to move on this proposal immediately.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 15:12
>>>> To: Peter Reynolds; xliff-promotion
>>>> Subject: Forming a Working Liaison with ISO TC37/SC5 to push XLIFF 2.0
>>>> as ISO standard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Peter,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> please find linked a sample ballot by which the TC approved a working
>>>> liaison, in this case
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201204/msg00013.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to draw your attention to the concise mandate (scope and
>>>> responsibilities) as copy-pasted down below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that you could draft an post to the P&L SC a similar
>>>> concise mandate for the ISO TC37/SC5 by the end of 2012, so that XLIFF TC
>>>> can have ballot on this liaison in early 2013?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your understanding and collaboration
>>>>
>>>> dF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. David Filip
>>>>
>>>> =======================
>>>>
>>>> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
>>>>
>>>> University of Limerick, Ireland
>>>>
>>>> telephone: +353-6120-2781
>>>>
>>>> cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
>>>>
>>>> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
>>>>
>>>> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [sample mandate start]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a concise mandate for the liaison (to be used in an electronic
>>>> ballot if seconded)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scope (work on and facilitation of the following):
>>>>
>>>> 1.     XLIFF TC providing business requirements to MultilingualWeb-LT,
>>>> so that semantic match between the standards is secured early on.
>>>>
>>>> 2.     Optionally, representation of  MultilingualWeb-LT metadata using
>>>> XLIFF 1.2
>>>>
>>>> 1.     Having a "profile" or mutual understanding on the best practice
>>>>
>>>> 3.     Most importantly, both groups should strive to have native
>>>> representation of  MultilingualWeb-LT metadata categories in XLIFF 2.0
>>>>
>>>> Responsibilities:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The liaison will report to the P&L SC, which in turn reports at least
>>>> monthly to XLIFF TC.
>>>>
>>>> The main duties of the liaison at MultilingualWeb-LT shall be:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Ensure that XLIFF TC viewpoint (localization roundtrip) is well
>>>> represented during the requirements gathering.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Follow up on queries and issues logged by XLIFF TC and its members to
>>>> ensure that they are well addressed according to W3C WG process throughout
>>>> draft, test suit, till final recommendation.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Identify and promote opportunities for common non-normative best
>>>> practice notes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [sample mandate end]
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>