RE: [xliff] ULI

["Peter Reynolds" <p.reynolds@maart.pl>]

Hi David, All,

 

I agree with most of this. I prefer Rodolfo's approach of using modules for TM exchange, segmentation rules etc. I think TBX is one standard that the ISO TC 37 can deal with and am surprised you are suggesting otherwise. TC 37 is dominated by terminologists many of whom have been active in the development of TBX. I think the problem here is a disconnect between TC 37 and industry. I do not see how it gets feedback from people who are using TBX in a non-academic setting. The other issue is the length of time it takes to develop these standards. ISO has the right to continue developing TBX and I think this is a better option than it disappearing in the legal graveyard which LISA seem to be creating.

 

Thanks,

 

Peter.

---

From: davidf@davidf.org on behalf of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Tue 2011-05-03 23:56
To: Helena S Chapman
Cc: Lucia.Morado; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org; Yves Savourel
Subject: Re: [xliff] ULI

Hi Helena, I am interested.. I will try to accomodate my schedule, I just absolutely cannot do it on 12th and 13th of May..

My feedback to the announcement and its focus is that it should not make direct reference to LISA OSCAR standards becuase of their fishy legal status..

I like the idea of absolutely interoperable segmentation core and the language specific additions..

The exchange format of course will be like SRX and it will most probably be inspired by SRX, it can even reference SRX if it will be at last published by ISO TC 37 or even ETSI. But I strongly believe that ULI should put forward its own segmentation exchange standard succesor that will be fully and safely owned by Unicode..

Regarding the TM exchange, I strongly believe this is an XLIFF issue.

TM leverage in XLIFF should be realized

1) through an <alt-trans> successor that can possibly be in core..

2) TC should describe best practice how to use translated XLIFF body itself for further leverage

3) there should be an option for a TMX like container for including potentially useful legacy pairs without knowing if they pertain to particular segments, this could be called concordnace exchange container..

I believe that TM leverage is not at all in Unicode's domain

Finally there is terminology, and although TBX is a published ISO standard, the likelihood that it will be further developed within TC 37 or elsewhere is quite low. TBX despite being very heavy, so heavy that it had to produce one lightweight and one even lighter version, it has serious deficiencies, like not allowing hierarchical relationships, poor handling of morphology etc.

TBX successor is a big beast and I can see parts of it addressed by Unicode, i.e. the morphology bit, but for instance the ontology modelling should go to W3C.. XLIFF should only reference various standard glossary formats including TBX falvors and successors without attempting own standardization in this area.. We should be able to start adressing this with LT-Web, which gets the funding, actually we go negotiate for the money on 12th and 13th.. The other bits should get serious thrust if we get the LT-Infra funding in early 2012..

Rgds

dF

Dr. David Filip

=======================

LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS

University of Limerick, Ireland

telephone: +353-61- 202781

mobile: +420-777-218122

mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 17:14, Helena S Chapman <hchapman@us.ibm.com> wrote:

As mentioned, I'd like to call an off-line meeting. Please write me if you are interested. Agenda:

- I have some idea of the initial focus area: SRX and TMX related. Specifically,
        1. TR29 specifying the definition and types of textual segmentation rules that applies across the entire life cycle of content, not just during translation phase.
        2. SRX being the interchange standards for #1.
        3. CLDR to publish language specific segmentation behavior. Following the core/module concept, the specialty module would not be expected to be 100% interoperable. However, core should.
        4. Sort out whether there is a need for memory specific standards outside XLIFF. I have a list of concerns and issues to share. See below.
- Any of the above does not belong in Unicode? I need your input on what to stay out of or mind my own business and WHY? What type of interaction point would be needed between the two?

I plan to call this meeting soon before I kick off the ULI activity on the Unicode side. Please write me by noon EDT Wed May 4th with a few availability options and I will send invitation shortly after. I will not be able to accommodate all the requirements, my apologies in advance.

Best regards,

Helena Shih Chapman
Globalization Technologies and Architecture
+1-720-396-6323 or T/L 938-6323
Waltham, Massachusetts




From:        "Lucia.Morado" <Lucia.Morado@ul.ie>
To:        "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>, <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        05/03/2011 10:30 AM
Subject:        RE: [xliff] ULI

---

I see Helena as the current TC officer, she might clarify this in
today's meeting. http://unicode.org/uli/

Lucia

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com]
> Sent: 03 May 2011 13:01
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xliff] ULI
>
> FYI:
>
> A new TC at the Unicode Consortium
>
http://unicode-inc.blogspot.com/2011/04/unicode-consortium-announces.htm
l
>
> Interesting.
> So, what happens when something published by the ULI TC and something
> published by the XLIFF TC are contradictory?
>
> Cheers,
> -ys
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php