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: RE: [xliff] Groups - XLIFF TC Call added

Hi everyone,

Here are my feedback for the call I'll (98% likely) miss tomorrow:

> 3/ Sub Committee Reports
> - Inline text (Yves)

We had a good session last Tuesday.
Making some progress toward making 'stable' several items in our list:

We've also start the discussion in earnest on several items, including the representation of metadata (e.g. not-to-translate, term, tool-specific annotation, comments, etc.)

Just one reminder to the SC members that we have to make progress in the various discussions by email, or we will take forever to complete the work.

> 4/ Charter Draft (David F.)
> (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201106/msg00003.html)

It seems the definition of "Toolmaker" is a bit complicated. And the same goes for "End user".

Currently it reads "A consumer of the standard who usually does not play an active role in the standard development. Unlike End Users, Toolmakers are expected to work with the XML of the standard and feedback the TC. Even though a toolmaker can play a role on the TC, his role as the standard's consumer is distinct."

I think we could just define a toolmaker as something like: "someone that creates tools that produce and/or consume documents defined by the standards".
There is probably no need to refer to what role a toolmaker (or end user) plays in the definition of the standard.

There are also a few terms like "basic language technology related transformations" or "processing rules" that are quite fuzzy and could mean different things.

For example "Core" is defined as the parts needed to perform "basic language technology related transformations". "basic language technology related transformations" can be translation, it can be TM/MT matching, QA fixes, etc. basically it can encompass pretty much all functionalities an XLIFF documents could cover. It all depends on how you define "basic", "language technology" and "transformation".

Maybe "core" could be defined based on what it represents instead of what you can do with it?
For example, it stores:
- the source, and possibly the translation of a text content extracted from some source material, 
- identifiers so the extracted data can be merged back into the original format
- status information about the state of the translation (?),
- etc.

Just a thought. But at the same time I'm not sure the TC wants to discuss a lot definitions out of context. Without seeing where those definitions are used, the discussion can quickly degenerate into endless debate. And then into discussions about how to debate, and then into how to decide how to debate, etc. :)


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