[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Y8 - translation state
I like the simplicity of the state attributes described here, and I think this solution presents a good compromise for the difficult
problem of facilitating countless unknown and varied proprietary states. I am wondering about the definition of “final”. Can I assume that this will be a reliable indicator of readiness to proceed
to the next workflow step? Or, should this be a more authoritative “final”, where no further changes are anticipated (i.e. ready to publish)?
In Microsoft, we’ve had similar discussions around how to map high level translation status with myriad low-level localization
process sub-states. Given the inevitable complexity around these low level states, we aren’t interested in defining or tracking everything that happens during the translation/editing/proofreading phase. Instead, what becomes important is identifying readiness
to “move forward” – i.e. when a translation is ready for the next step in the overall workflow (which doesn’t imply any overall finality). Once this time has been identified, further in-house validation/processing may occur. But how could we identify this
readiness given the generic “translated” and “reviewed” states that most tools will support? Do you anticipate all/any of these factors to be managed via custom second-level states entirely?
Thanks, Kevin. -----Original Message----- Hi Helena, > ...since different organizations would have even different processes
> and definitions on what "translated" even means, how do we ensure
> consistency across various processes? The idea is that they would not have different definitions of what the first part means. XLIFF would define what these values mean exactly. But the users would have complete control over the second part. The only requirement would be
that they must make sure to classify their different states in one of the to-level ones. For example, in your case you listed: state='new' state='pretranslate' state='translated' state='translated/xyz:someMTEngine' state='translated/xyz:post_edit_done' ... It would probably be something like this: state='new' -> the entry is new, nothing has been done to it. state='translated/ibm:pretranslate' -> some pre-translation step has been applied, possibly from TM(?) state='translated/ibm:someMTEngine' -> an MT engine has been applied state='translated/ibm:post_edit_done' -> a human has done the
post editing etc. basically: you would still control the state. But another tool could get a basic knowledge of the status of the translation by looking at the first part of the value: 'translated' means the target is there, it may be done by a human
a machine, some leverage, etc. We don't know that. But we know it has not gone through a review step yet. > Also, if the input goes directly from MT to publishing channel, the
> only really interesting state to me would be "new" and "final".
> Anything in between is too hard to track and define consistently. And that's fine too. The idea is not that the segment must go through all the steps, just to provide a) a rough idea of the stats of the translation with the first part, and b) allow tool to fine-tune the meaning of the state. Cheers, -yves --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail:
xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Helena S Chapman I think this is an interesting proposal though I am having a difficult time picturing how different companies with different processes would take advantage of this. So I am
thinking from IBM perspective and the examples would change to:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]