XLIFF TC Meeting - Summary

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>]

XLIFF TC Meeting - Summary
Date:  Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Time:  11:00am - 12:00pm ET

=== 1/ Roll call

Presents: David Filip, Tom, Bryan, Andrew, Yves, David Walter, Rodolfo, Christian, Lucìa, Peter, Steven
Regrets: Helena

Recapitulation of methodology: TC meeting on 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month, inline SC on 2nd Tuesday.
In TC call: first we work on "technical part", then second half on "current business"
Today: switch because there are many items to go through.

XLIFF TC has/had relationship with several other group (e.g. OSCAR, ISO, etc.)
Lately because of LISA dismissal we had to discuss more about other standards.


=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 03 May 2011 meeting minutes:
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201105/msg00017.html)

Bryan moves to accept the minutes
Peter seconds
No objections


=== 3/ Sub Committee Reports
- Inline markup:

Minutes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201105/msg00005.html
- summary of current view (Yves to post it to wiki)
- handling of overlapping spans
- editing properties/hints for codes
- white space handling


=== 4/ Current XLIFF business
--- 4.1. XLIFF and other standards: activity/impact

    a. Peter's request that our TC, along with former OSCAR 
       members discuss OASIS/XIFF taking over TMX/SRX
      (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201103/msg00015.html)
       - - Note 1, Christian noted Arle's blog on this topic 
          (http://www.gala-global.org/blog/)
       - - Note 2, Peter wrote a reply 
          (http://blog.maart.com/en/content/standards-reactivation-lisa-estate-saga-continues)

Peter: Not much to report. ETSI is going ahead to provide a parking place for the LISA standards.
OASIS did some work to try to get the standards.
Wait and see for now.
Bryan: do we need to do anything (as a TC)?
Peter: an ETSI ISG is being setup

David-F: Was at TAUS board. For more info on reaction need to ask TAUS directly.
ISG is only entitled to do group work not standard.
Peter: See potential issue in future with ETSI (e.g. lack of experts), but will see.
David-F: ISG was formed by some ex-LISA members. Seems just a parking place
Rodolfo: at last LISA call: options: a) ETSI b) OASIS. invitations for ETSI was send by WHP not ETSI.
Peter: invitation were on personal basis. WHP is in same city as ETSI.
OASIS was interested, tried to show how they would offer value (Peter's reading)

Bryan: 3 directions:
a) standards could be parked and lay dormant: may or may not be ok
b) standards could be continued to be developed and depending on the access it may be ok or not
c) standards could be developed within OASIS XLIFF TC

David-F: TC should take the initiative. Do a leverage module ASAP to replace TMX.
Same for ULI and SRX.
For TBX: seem ISO TC-37 is the proper place.

Peter: Much more proactive approach than my idea
e.g. Maybe ETSI is the good place, we just don't know.
TMX was designed for segmentation-based translation, not for corpus-based translation.
Basically: not sure yet what the right direction is.

Bryan: what about GMX and xml:tm?
Peter: Not relevant for XLIFF, more to OAXAL
David-F: GMX-V only the part defined in GMX. ULI can take that.
OAXAL is just reference architecture not a place for development of the standards.

Rodolfo: GMX-V is based on XLIFF. Could be re-defined as XLIFF part.
David-F: Boundaries are the core of the count, that is Unicode work
Rodolfo: GMX-V is based on Unicode
SRX based on regular expression not Unicode

Peter: Maybe we need a talk in 2 month time to see what is the situation then
And possibly act then.

Rodolfo: During face-to-face meeting maybe?
David-F: Agree with Peter, but we are entitled to have a leverage module meanwhile.
Seen 3 approaches to XLIFF one can be a replacement to TMX

Bryan: Agree with David-F. We need to do our own work, and some of it depends on those factors.
Possibly need to update the charter. We may not have the luxury to wait.

David-F: working on the new charter draft.
PMI charter more detailed than OASIS's. TC will be able to discuss and see what part should be promoted.
We may not change it as well.

Christian: Had we a TC decision to redo the charter?
David-F: We had discussions several months ago. Before 2.0.
Bryan: We did recognize we may need a new charter. We may need interim/working charter too.
Rodolfo: we are still working on 2.0 without the proper charter.

Bryan: we'll have to decide if we want to be more pro-active or wait with regard to other standards.
Peter: So should we move forward? Suggesting wait and see in general only.
Rodolfo: I've posted an example of a possible schema.
Should we keep that or not?
Peter: Propose we move forward with leveraging module

Bryan: David-F will be done with draft new charter soon.
Maybe you can include the framework for those additions part of XLIFF

David-F: Proposal for ballot: "TC agrees to include a leveraging module in XLIFF 2.0"
Christian:  I think we should not vote on something for which no clear description exists.
David-F: the specifications is in Rodolfo's schema.

David-W: What leveraging means in this context?
We don't even have defined what a "module" is.

Rodolfo: Don't like the ballot wording. Leveraging should be more specific (e.g. with processing).
Peter: I think doing a proposal on the fly is a mistake
David-F: let's do that next time.

Rodolfo: should I keep the elements I've added to the schema for now?
Bryan: I do not object.
David-W: should not be included because not defined enough
Yves: Agree with David-W

Rodolfo: (text afterward) I included a PDF describing the elements related to leveraging.
Have you read it?


=== b. Helena's announcement about Unicode Localization Interoperability Technical Committee
       (http://www.unicode.org/uli/)
       - - Note 1, Helena called an off-line meeting 
          (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201105/msg00006.html)
       - - Note 2, Call for Participation: Unicode Localization Interoperability Kick-off
          (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201105/msg00062.html)

The ballot passed.

Recommendation from C: that role and obligation of the liaison should be discussed before voting.
Bryan: Think we are not ready yet
Peter: But we need to do this soon.
OASIS has duties of the liaison (Robin sent a link).

Bryan: do we have time constraint for David-F to be liaison at the Barcelona panel? (Jun-15 or 16)
It takes 7 days to have a e-ballot

David-F: Need to confirm the panel attendance this week.
Think link Robin sent is clear about the liaison duties. Not sure about specifics.
Basically will try to avoid conflicts between the output of both committees
Christian: Regarding liaison duties: I might have missed the information that was circulated.

David-F: will go to the panel anyway, regardless of the liaison status.
But would be nice to know now to answer.

Bryan: I move to propose that David-F be the XLIFF TC liaison for ULI.
Peter: seconds
Proposal reaches a majority: David-F is the liaison for ULI


=== 7/ New Business

None

Notes: 

Tom is voting member now
Steven is voting member now

-end