OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: XLIFF TC Telelconference - Summary

XLIFF TC Telelconference -- Summary
Date:  Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Time:  11:00am - 12:00pm ET

=== 1/ Roll call

Presents: Yves, Bryan, Dimitra, Christian, David, Doug.
Regrets: Andrew, Lucia.

=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 05 October 2010 meeting minutes:

Bryan moves to accept the minutes
Yves seconds
No objections.

Bryan: have a new role at work -> less bandwidth.
If anyone with strong mgt skill could help to craft the agenda that would help me.

=== 3.1. David proposes a ballot on *conformance criteria and processing requirements in xliff 2.0*

David proposed a ballot just before the previous call.
David: Both Christian and Asgeir have thoughts about the topic.
Any comments?

Some explanations:
- Conformance criteria are not *the* conformance clause. The formal conformance clause should be constructed as referring to conformance *criteria* specified throughout the whole spec.
- Well-formedness is a first level conformance requirement similar to logical and mathematical calculi, usually given as inductive definition.
- Provenance is not a methodological *principle* and IMHO should not be referred to in this charter-like ballot. Nevertheless, provenance is a likely *means* to achieve 2.
- I do not address modularity, as the ballot would become too complicated. Nevertheless, the below formulations are intended as conform with the minimal and modular approach..

----- ballot wording:
TC sets as the following methodological principles for XLIFF 2.0 re conformance and processing:
1. Each element and data type must be accompanied by clearly specified conformance criteria
2. Conformance criteria must be binary, i.e. satisfied or failed, no shades of grey or levels of support.
3. Conformance criteria must include well-formedness and processing requirements
4. Processing requirements must be defined in terms of well-formedness and specific allowed values of elements and data types before and after processing.  

Christian: maybe need an example could help understanding things. Maybe one of the existing XLIFF element or attribute and show conformance criteria and processing requirements.

David: example are good, but is that mean the current wording is not clear enough?
Examples would be diving into technical details.

Christian: yes, no technical details needed.

Bryan: maybe we can go through the wording.

David: provenance is one of the technical details we don't need.

Dimitra: would the explanation come with the ballot?

David: no, just support for discussion.

Dimitra: example would help maybe.

David: Christian had a different wording (W3C-based), but maybe not equivalent.

Christian: no they are not equivalent. I just used ITS as a start point and try to adapt for XLIFF.

David: well-formedness is to capture Rodolfo needs to rely on the document for the conformance.

Yves: maybe some PI will be difficult to define for some aspects.

David: Should be ok in term of well-formedness/valid values before/after, etc. could be done in various form (rules, mapping, etc.)

Dimitra: #2, will we have different levels? (modules)

David: that why minimality and modularity is not addressed here. Things defined per module. Minimality and modularity are different principles.
Seems we need better explanations to get in a ballot form(?)
Question: with current wording: is it fine to vote? (clear to all?)
Maybe preamble statement would help too.

Clear for Bryan, Yves.
Less clear for Dimitra (need to learn more about conformance)

Christian: would abstain.

David: seems we need more discussion then.

Christian: Maybe I could send what I wrote and see if David's proposal is visible there.

David: Christian to post his formulation and I can comment it.

Dimitra +1

David: conformance clause is something we must have in mind all the time for all parts of the specification
Will help as reference when working on/from the specification.

Bryan: Rodolfo noted that we need specific conformance clause.
This would be helping in making the specification very easy to check for TC requirements.

Bryan: so Christian will send his input.
All ok with this.

=== 3.2. Move our spec into Docbook

a. Filter current spec into Docbook (Bryan)
-> Started by not ready yet.

b. Rodolfo to add Docbook spec to OASIS
-> depend on a)

=== 3.3. ISO/OASIS XLIFF - XLIFF as an ISO standard (Peter)

Peter not on the call.

=== 3.4. Multi lingual Web (Christian)

Christian: EU work. Goal to raise awarness of standards and best practices, and gather possible areas needing work.
Workshop in Madrid: http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/madrid/cfp
Goal is to get an overview of where we are.
3 additional workshops in the next years.

Dimitra: Lucia is going too.

Christian: I think presentations will be public afterward.

=== 3.5. RDF + XLIFF (Dimitra)

Dimitra: No progress so far.
May create group tomorrow. The idea is to foster relation between l10n/i18n/semantic web work.

=== 4 XLIFF Inline text SC report

Yves: Requirements are done.
Next time we start the design/implementation.

Bryan: will you modify schema?
Yves: Yes will create small subset first and integrate with 2.0 as needed.

Bryan: Backward compatibility?
Yves: Existing ballot says 2.0 does not have to be backward compatible.
However we will trying to help that by having a clear migration path, mapping between 1.2 and 2.0.
Bryan: possible item for overall TC too.

=== 5 XLIFF Symposium Debrief: "Voice of our customer"

Christian began the Consolidated takeaways wiki page (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/Consolidated%20Takesaways%20from%20First%20XLIFF%20Symposium)
Christian's slides: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/download.php/39848/2010-10-08_1st%20XLIFF%20Symposium%20-%20XLIFF%20TC%20Summary-draft.pdf
Symposium page, photo show added by Luca: http://www.localisation.ie/xliff/

The "Voice of the Customer": Place for all attendee to comments here:

Bryan: +1 for encouraging contributions.

Christian: You can add your comments and can just add your name to existing comments if you agree.


=== 10/ New Business

Bryan: any new business?


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]