Changes in feature wiki structure? was: Re: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals

["Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>]

Yves, Bryan,

I do not think features should be ever commented out. Keeping publicly parse-able history is important for our transparency.

In my view, we have this feature, the feature just got dissolved among other features, Annotations, ITS mapping, and glossary mechanism.

I would propose to move it to Section 3 with the explanation that it is not needed as standalone, because it got covered by annotations, ITS support and glossary. BTW, all of these need more work to work at and to support the term proposals. I tend to think of managing term proposals as a use case for the above features. If this view ever changes, Yves or a new owner will be always able to reintroduce a 2.x approved feature ballot.

BTW, as we are now close to 2.0 I think of face lifting the process including the wiki sections, so that we can discern between really rejected features and features just parked for a 2.x version. I think that this is a meaningful difference that would help us parsing.

If this was realized as splitting of section 3 into two subsections, we would not need even to change the process, because the procedure for moving something back for 2.x would remain the same. I personally do not care for the label, it is not a prison as there is no prison term, we can call it Parking Lot as well :-) but it does not change the semantics given by our understanding and usage.

Cheers

dF

Dr. David Filip

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

LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS

University of Limerick, Ireland

telephone: +353-6120-2781

cellphone: +353-86-0222-158

facsimile: +353-6120-2734

mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Schnabel, Bryan S <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com> wrote:

Makes sense. Just as a housekeeping question, I noticed that rather than moving this item to section 3 in the wiki, you commented it out of section 2.

I'm wondering (out loud, and to everyone on the mailing list) if commenting out a proposed feature from section 2 is preferred, or if it might be better to move it to section 3, in the interest of keeping its history? I wonder if section 3's "Discarded Proposed Features" title wording has too negative a connotation?

-----Original Message-----
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 1:48 PM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals

Hi all,

> (Y21) (Term Proposals) It seems that the proposal overlaps with the
> glossary module. Yves will have an opportunity to further specify the
> feature and submit it for electronic ballot.

It is related to the Glossary module, but that module is not covering all the aspects of the feature of this term-related proposal. For example, this feature was to provide a way to annotate the content rather than just list terms.

There is an equivalent mechanism in the ITS Terminology data category that will need to be integrated later one too.

Ad there are some additional discussion on terms here:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201211/msg00110.html


My guess is that the terminology-related module is far from ready.
Maybe the current Glossary module can go with 2.0 and either an updated version or a new module could replace/complement it at a later time.

cheers,
-yves


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org