[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] OASIS XLIFF TC liaison with MultilingualWeb-LT
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [xliff] OASIS XLIFF TC liaison with MultilingualWeb-LT
From: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Thu, March 29, 2012 3:14 pm
To: "Rodolfo M. Raya" <email@example.com>,
Thanks Rodolfo,I agree with you that 2.0 is more important, but since MultilingualWeb-LT is mandated (and funded) until the end of 2013, they cannot wait for XLIFF 2.0.The understanding on the profile should be very low effort for XLIFF TC.In my view, the only thing the XLIFF TC needs to provide is a definition of profile for both 1.2 and 2.0. This seems a pressing need also in relation to other initiatives (ULI, IN!, GALA).I totally agree that the liaison should concentrate on securing semantic match with 2.0 and developing native support for ITS categories in 2.0 (feature under consideration, owned by Christian).I think that XLIFF TC should be aware of its standardization scope limits and embrace opportunities to influence developments of related standards in neighboring domains, so I disagree with your proposal to ignore the MultilingualWeb-LT standardization activity and continue working without a formally established liaison.If XLIFF TC takes the opportunity to influence ITS successor development it will have much easier job supporting it. We simply cannot and must not ignore content life cycle metadata and continue building unrelated localization downstream dreamboats.We have a genuine opportunity to push data categories that are relevant for localization process into an upstream standard, I urge the TC to use it.Best regardsdF
Dr. David Filip=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSISUniversity of Limerick, Irelandtelephone: +353-6120-2781cellphone: +353-86-0222-158facsimile: +353-6120-2734
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 13:24, Rodolfo M. Raya <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Hi David,One of your listed work areas is:2. Representation of MultilingualWeb-LT metadata using XLIFF 1.21. Have a "profile' or mutual understanding on the best practiceWe are working on XLIFF 2.0 now. We should not waste our efforts on XLIFF 1.2 if we accept the liaison proposal.The fact that MultilingualWeb-LT has devised a dependency in our TC is not our problem and should not be considered a motivating factor of any kind.We should not have any dependency on their work. If they want to provide a set of metadata categories for common use, that would be nice. Nevertheless, we don’t have to wait for them.If TC members want to work in both groups at the same time, that’s fine and could be useful provided our work pace is not affected.Regards,RodolfoHi all,on last TC meeting I have proposed on behalf of the Promotion and Liaison subcommittee that we form a liaison relationship with W3C MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group.The relationship between XLIFF TC and W3C Internationalization Activity has been traditionally good. We had on the 1st XLIFF symposium a presentation by Christian Lieske and Prof. Felix Sasaki on the secret mariage between XLIFF and ITS. Now, P&L SC recommends to bring the relationship with the MultilingualWeb-LT working group (that has been mandated to produce an ITS successor) to the official liaison level. [See WG Charter]MultilingualWeb-LT has named OASIS XLIFF TC as its only external dependency (relationship stronger than simple liaison, WG must officially respond to queries and issues logged on behalf of XLIFF TC).MultilingualWeb-LT works on content metadata with localization roundtripping in mind; the main goal is to bridge the gap between content authoring and content localization standards. The WG recognizes the importance of XLIFF as the pivotal localization standard that is critical for localization roundtripping. XLIFF TC considers having native support for ITS (feature C3 on wiki)Therefore there exist a few areas where the groups need to work together.
- XLIFF TC providing business requirements to MultilingualWeb-LT, so that semantic match between the standards is secured early on.
- MultilingualWeb-LT will be in requirements gathering phase for several months. The feature freeze will be in November 2012.
- Representation of MultilingualWeb-LT metadata using XLIFF 1.2
- Have a "profile' or mutual understanding on the best practice
- Most importantly, both groups should strive to have native representation of MultilingualWeb-LT metadata categories in XLIFF 2.0David Filip, co-chair of MultilingualWeb-LT, has been appointed MultilingualWeb-LT liaison at XLIFF TC.XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC nominated Arle Lommel as XLIFF TC liaison at MultilingualWeb-LT.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.Please use this week for discussion of pros and cons of having such a liaison. Unless the discussion reveals some grave issues that the P&L SC has not considered so far, I will formally propose early next week an electronic ballot on forming this liaison as described above.Thanks and regardsdFDr. David Filip=======================LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSISUniversity of Limerick, Irelandtelephone: +353-6120-2781cellphone: +353-86-0222-158facsimile: +353-6120-2734