[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Groups - Event "XLIFF TC Call" modified
Event Title: XLIFF TC Call
Date: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 11:00am to 12:00pm EDT
Please join my meeting.
This meeting counts towards voter eligibility.
I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
II XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:30)
B. Public review completed (0:30 - 0:40)
C. TC list email relevant to XLIFF 2.0, but not to the Public Review
III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:40 - 0:50)
IV Charter (Bryan to update site)
V Sub Committee Report (0:50 - )
IV Current Business
V New Business
Bryan, Asanka, Fredrik, Joachim, Jungwoo, Kevin ODonnell, Lucia, Shirley, Tom, Uwe. Helena Shih
Victor, David, Yves
Bryan: Quorum achieved. Approval to the previous meeting minutes: 2013 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00009.html.
Fredrik: I Second.
B: Minutes approved.
B: We have finished the review meeting. The timeline under best circumstances will finish the 6th December.
The most urgent topic is to agree on the 4 options regarding Resegmentation.
B: We agreed to an online ballot about removing glossary from file, but I did not find it proposed and seconded in the notes. Propose it now?
Joachim: I think we did not decide on this one. The rational to take it away was that it would be not possible to have more sophisticated glossary systems to have them implemented in the current element.
B: we also talked of adding ID.
Fredrik: it would be not possible to have an extension like tbx inside, that would mean replacing some core functions with extensions.
B: should we proceed?
Joachim: the current glossary element is too simple to replace a full glossary implementation (e.g. TBX). The idea is to use it on a second level.
J: we had two more attributes that we wanted to added, the Id and the other one, I can’t remember it.
B: the mechanism that was discussed was to add an id to the glossary entry and then a marker to the gloss entry on the text to link to the glossary entry. Do you think that we are ready to propose a ballot?
Shirley: I prefer to see an electronic ballot.
Asanka: me too.
F: I propose to have an electronic ballot.
J: I second it.
B: Resegmentation topic.
Fredrik: There was a problem with the segmentation of units as it is defined in the current schema. We need to decide which processing requirements are we implementing to clarify the resegmentation. The four possible solutions:
- Option 1: don’t allow if module or extension (make core depend on non-core)
Joachim: I just thinking about the implications that were talked through the email discussion. The email sent by Fredrik.
My approach was looking at different modules, if and how in real life this would work. In the matches module there would be not collision.
F: for matches there is not a problem.
J: For validation I don’t see a problem either. For the MD do we care?
F: it is hard to say, because it can contain all sorts of data. So if the MD has data relevant to the match, then it would be a problem.
J: For changes tracking we can have a rule. But for validation I don’t see a solution.
B: We agree that the most difficult part about this solution is the validation module.
F: the last option is to say that the all change tracking should be at the unit level, instead of having rules at the segment level. There is not necessity to have that information at the segment level.
J: so when we recreate the segments, what happens with change tracking.
S: can you elaborate on the change tracking module at the segment level? A real scenario?
F: I think we should have Ryan to discuss on that. I don’t really think it is necessary to have the change tracking at the segment level, at the unit level would be necessary.
J: It does not matter where you put the track changing in my opinion.
F: There is a good case to have track changing in the standard.
Shirley: I just wondering I cant see the necessity of having track changes at the segment level, I see the case of having it at the unit level.
Kevin: I don’t have anything to add to this, we should wait for Ryan to comment on why it should be at the segment level.
Helena: Good point about sync with review module and my comments apply there as well.
B: Are there any other questions/comments to enrich this discussion before having the electronic ballot.
B: About the timeline. If everything goes well, we can have it by the first week of December. Milestones:
The challenge would be to have enough votes, same problem encountered when approving the previous version.
B: [Talking about the comments and how to address them.] David has committed to have his items done by the second Tuesday on July. I would ask each of the owners of the tasks of the comments to have in consideration the milestones dates, to conclude your tasks. Are there any questions about the timeline or about the comments?
Uwe: We have a good momentum, so it would be great if we can stick to that timeline.
B: Meeting adjourned.
Owner: Bryan Schnabel
Group: OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
Sharing: This event is shared with the OASIS Open (General Membership), and General Public groups. Public Event Link
BEGIN:VCALENDAR CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Kavi Corporation//NONSGML Kavi Groups//EN X-MS-OLK-FORCEINSPECTOROPEN:TRUE BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20001029T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10;UNTIL=20061029T060000Z TZNAME:EST TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20071104T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11 TZNAME:EST TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20000402T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=4;UNTIL=20060402T070000Z TZNAME:EDT TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20070311T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYMONTH=3 TZNAME:EDT TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT CATEGORIES:MEETING STATUS:CONFIRMED TRANSP:OPAQUE DTSTAMP:20130621T000000Z DTSTART;VALUE=DATE-TIME;TZID=America/New_York:20130618T110000 DTEND;VALUE=DATE-TIME;TZID=America/New_York:20130618T120000 SEQUENCE:1 SUMMARY:XLIFF TC Call DESCRIPTION:\n Please join my meeting.\n https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/905529225\n Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or\, call in using your telephone.\n\n \n France: +33 (0) 182 880 780\n Germany: +49 (0) 892 2061 159\n Spain: +34 911 23 0850\n Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 612\n United Kingdom: +44 (0) 203 535 0611\n United States: +1 (773) 945-1031\n\n \n
\;Access Code: 905-529-225\n Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting\n Meeting ID: 905-529-225\n\nAgenda: \n I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)\n A. Roll call\n B. Approve previous meeting minutes\, 10 June 2013 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00009.html\n C. XLIFF 2.0 update Okapi library (Yves) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00006.html\n\n II XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:30)\n A. Actions required from F2F concensus\n 1. We agreed to an online ballot about removing glossary from file\, but I did not find it proposed and seconded in the notes. Propose it now?\n 2. We agreed to wait and get clarification on the 4 options for ballot regarding Re-segmentation:\n - Option 1: don&rsquo\;t allow if module or extension (make core depend on non-core)\n - Option 2: throw away (if you don&rsquo\;t understand\, throwaway &ndash\;disrupts modules)\n - Option 3: set flag\, (if it is a yes\, it is undefined behavior)\n - Option 4: Move meta to unit (lots of changes to spec\; can still have flag (or different use)\n Note: Ryan'\;s modification (as discussed on Yves'\; thread): https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00005.html\n 3. Ballot on PR for XML PI proposed by DavidF https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=2432\n (as of the time this meeting agenda is being created\, only 3 have voted)\n\n B. Public review completed (0:30 - 0:40)\n 1. Comments are tracked on the wiki: review assignments and status\n https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker\n\n C. TC list email relevant to XLIFF 2.0\, but not to the Public Review\n 1. Formalizing the role of extensibility as launch pad for future XLIFF Core or Module features (Bryan)\n https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201305/msg00022.html\n\n III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:40 - 0:50)\n 1. Freeze on Feature Tracking wiki? Or queue proposed post 2.0 features there?\n 2. Do we have an official path for promoting custom namespace to supported core/module post XLIFF 2.0?\n\n IV Charter (Bryan to update site)\n\n V Sub Committee Report (0:50 - )\n\n IV Current Business\n\n V New Business\nGroup: OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC\nCreator: Bryan Schnabel URL:https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/event.php?event_id=35673 UID:https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/event.php?event_id=35673 BEGIN:VALARM ACTION:DISPLAY DESCRIPTION:REMINDER TRIGGER;RELATED=START:-PT00H15M00S END:VALARM END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR