I’m not sure that works… The question 4 has two options and I don’t think should to check either, but the question request an answer. - I am not *not a member…* - And I shouldn’t need to send the endorsement in the comment list (since I am a member) It seems we need a third option (I am a member) or skip that question if we said so in the previous page. Or I’m confused… which is quite possible. -ys From: Lucia Morado Vazquez [mailto:Lucia.Morado@unige.ch] Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:59 AM To: Lucia Morado Vazquez; Dr. David Filip Cc: Chet Ensign; Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: Survey/SUO feedback Hello again, I have added some logic to the agreement section (by creating different questions). I have also added one option proposed by Chet. Please have a look and see if that is what is needed. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XLIFF2SOU Lucía Dear all, Thank you for your comments, I have been implemented them https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XLIFF2SOU , see my comments below: >>>I have one question about the terminology we should use: Should we use “tools/ CAT tools” or “implementations” in the questions? (E.g. “The objective of this questionnaire is to obtain statements of use of the new version XLIFF 2.0 in CAT Tools. ”) >>>I think we are not interested in CAT tools solely, the easiest fix would probably be to say tools or sofware where we currently say CAT tools. 2.0 is specifically targeting the roundtrip so many implementations are not and should not be CAT tools as in traditional Translation Editors Done, I have left “software application” in the introduction, and “tool” elsewhere. In Q5 where they have to describe the implementation, I have left “implementation”. >>> Well, the official hyperlinks won't be live for about a week, so we need to attach a copy of the cs01 html. please note that we are not able to hyperlink the html on SVN. If attaching the file itself is not possible we need to figure out hosting for the provisional hyperlink SurveyMonkey does not allow us to attach/upload files. If you host it somewhere I can quote the url. Dropbox and similar systems allow you to do that. I can do it myself if you send me the actual file. >>> So 17 should use rather "change" than "modify". Otherwise, I have to say my tools is not a Modifier but have say that it can modify XLIFF 2.0 file, which seems confusing. It is good to have the [square bracket] it can make them go back and change their previous answer.. Done in 17 and 16. I have left “modify” in Q18 I think that in that cases it is ok to have it. In question 21. "changes" "processes" or "writes" should be used instead of "modifies" Done Regarding the modules portion: The question 44. appears even though I said in question 43. that we do not support the validation module Done >>- " 17. Which XLIFF version does your tool support?" : >>I assume we will remove all version but 2.0? > Done. Should we change that question to: “level of XLIFF 2.0 support?” "XLIFF 2.0 modules support"? or something like that. I have left now “XLIFF 2.0 core and modules support” On question 16: shouldn’t the yes/no be radio buttons instead of check boxes? Done >>>Also there is currently no logic in these: But if they are an OASIS member they should not be able to state that they are not and vice versa. - As members they should be able to select only one of the three subsumed options
- As non members they should be able to select or not both of the subsumed options.
- And the note about us sending the pdf to be attached to the comments e-mail is important
Ideally it should pop up only if they select the option, but if it is not possible, there is no harm in displaying it unconditionally I am working on this. It might not be possible to add a logic to that question I am looking for possible solutions. I will try it and keep you updated. Lucia De : xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] De la part de Dr. David Filip Envoyé : mercredi 2 avril 2014 11:52 À : Lucia Morado Vazquez Cc : Dr. David Filip; Chet Ensign; Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Objet : Re: [xliff] Re: Survey/SUO feedback Thnaks Lucía, detailed answers inline On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Lucia Morado Vazquez <Lucia.Morado@unige.ch> wrote: I think we are not interested in CAT tools solely, the easiest fix would probably be to say tools or sofware where we currently say CAT tools. 2.0 is specifically targeting the roundtrip so many implementations are not and should not be CAT tools as in traditional Translation Editors Here are my comments to your suggestions: >>> Also, Lucía, I hear from Chet that the official cs01 link will not be populated at the start of the survey. Is there a way to provide the html of the cs01 spec as attachment of the survey? Yes, I have made added hyperlinks as requested.
Well, the official hyperlinks won't be live for about a week, so we need to attach a copy of the cs01 html. please note that we are not able to hyperlink the html on SVN. If attaching the file itself is not possible we need to figure out hosting for the provisional hyperlink >>>- in " Does your tool prevent the creation of duplicated trans-unit IDs? " we should have 'unit' not 'trans-unit' Done. >>>- "21. Please select from the following required XLIFF attributes the ones that your tool can process:" list only some of the <xliff> element (trgLang is missing) Following the spec, I had made a distinction between “required” elements and attributes and the total set of elements and attributes. I can just leave the whole set if you think that it is confusing.
I think the distinction between required and optional is good to keep. But in some cases the optional is misleading because it only reflects the xsd limitations >>>- " 17. Which XLIFF version does your tool support?" : I assume we will remove all version but 2.0? Done. Should we change that question to: “level of XLIFF 2.0 support?”
>>>- There should be a place for people to provide links to their implementation, extra info, etc. (a field labeled as such, not as a general comment area). I have added three more questions for that purpose (5, 6 and 7) >>>- All SOU I see at OASIS are looking like explicit statements, Done >>>Lucía, in the light of Chet's comments, the company name and responder name should be made obligatory.. Done Please let me know if more changes are needed. Regards, Lucía De : Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie] Envoyé : mardi 1 avril 2014 23:05 À : Chet Ensign Cc : Dr. David Filip; Yves Savourel; Lucia Morado Vazquez; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Objet : Re: [xliff] Re: Survey/SUO feedback
======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> wrote: I see no problem with an SoU from Yves being acceptable. The definition of SoU says that it is from a party that is either an OASIS Member or a non-member. The definition of OASIS Member is "a person, organization or entity who is a voting or non-voting member of the corporation, as defined by the OASIS Bylaws." And I checked the bylaws just to be sure and there was nothing there that established anything other than voting and non-voting. So Yves and Bryan both are people last I checked and hence qualify. So I think you're good on both. On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote: Chet, there is another related clarification, some organizations are associate members where the only member is also the primary representative. We assume that associate members' implementations do not count as OASIS member implementations for the purposes of fulfilling the OASIS member implementation requirement for progression to standard. However, those members are bound with OASIS IPR policies through their respective memberships. To be specific, Yves is a primary member of an associate member, Bryan is an individual member on his own. I actually do not think that we are likely to get or need an outside OASIS SOU from the questionnaire at this stage if Yves or Bryan are considered OASIS members that are anyways bound by its IP policy and would fall into the category that you Okayed before..
======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote: Thanks Chet, we did not intend to use Survey Monkey as the archive, we of course will be extracting individual survey responses from the infra. Lucía may provide more detail on this. I take it that you sympathize with the goal I would rather see something like you propose, actually - there's a lot of value in having consistent, structured input. But unfortunately the process doesn't allow for that right now. and we've had great experience doing this for XLIFF 1.2 State of the Art reports So I will try and argue the point further
It won't work for non-OASIS contributors though given that the language in the TC Process is unambiguous. They *must* send their statements in via xliff-comment@
In case of a non-member, the Statement of Use must be submitted on the TC comment-list. This is the exact citation of the process you posted above. It uses passive voice so it does NOT say unequivocally that *the party* must submit it through the comment list. You said in this thread that the true intent of this regulation is to expose the non-member to the IPR policy. So what I propose satisfies *both* the written procedure and the actual intent. 1) We make link to the relevant IPR policy part of the questionnaire and will obtain an unequivocal tick approving that the implementer is bound by the IPR policy. [We won't use questionnaires who will not have this ticked as SOUs] 2) A TC member will submit to the comment list all non-member statements explaining that the respondents Okayed the lists IPR policy in the questionnaire. IMHO this is flawless, or? Thanks for looking into this On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote: Thanks, Chet, the reason we go through the questionnaire is to obtain accurate, comparable and structured info, from all implementers, not to source candidates. We could make the survey monkey respondent click approval with the relevant IPR policy, i.e. make the IPR link part of the boiler plate they will be approving, or put the full language inside whatever you prefer.. Does that sound as an avenue?
======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> wrote: This will need some tweaking to work. Here is the definition of SoU from the TC Process: "Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a written statement that a party has successfully used or implemented that specification in accordance with all or some of its conformance clauses specified in Section 2.18, identifying those clauses that apply, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations. The Statement of Use must be made to a specific version of the Committee Specification and must include the Specification's approval date. The party may be an OASIS Member or a non-member. >>>>>> In case of a non-member, the Statement of Use must be submitted on the TC comment-list. <<<<<<<< A TC may require a Statement of Use to include hyperlinks to documents, files or demonstration transcripts that enable TC members to evaluate the implementation or usage. A Statement of Use submitted to the TC must be approved by TC resolution as an acceptable Statement of Use with respect to the Committee Specification. A party can only issue one Statement of Use for a given specification. When issued by an OASIS Organizational Member, a Statement of Use must be endorsed by the Organizational Member's Primary Representative. Note the emphasized part requiring submission to xliff-comment@ for non-OASIS members. So the Survey Monkey entry alone won't satisfy that requirement. Not sure how we could make that work. Submitters to xliff-comment have to subscribe - that's how we ensure that they have been exposed to the IPR obligations. What if you use this to gather your candidates and then follow up with them to get the actual SoU. So instead of "I understand that the SOU MAY be used..." "The TC is welcome to contact me to obtain a written Statement of Use." On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote: Thanks, Chet, I just wanted to run some of the language we plan to use by you. Our plan is to use a Survey Monkey questionnaire to collect the statements. The questionnaire has a tick box for each feature and for agent profiles defined in the spec, so I think it exceeds the requirement for specifying which parts of the spec each statement conforms to I copy paste here the language that I had proposed to make the questionnaire collected data count as SOU. And the plan is of course to approve those SOU in our next meeting in 2 weeks time. The proposed questionnaire language follows, can you please let us know if it sounds OK? =============================== The responses provided through this questionnaire are intended as a Statement of Use (SOU) for I understand that the SOU MAY be used by the XLIFF TC [TC link] to progress the Committee Specification to OASIS standard. X I agree X My organization is an OASIS member [below is only relevant if they are OASIS member] X I am the primary representative of my organization in OASIS X This SOU will be endorsed by my organizations primary representative on the TC mailing list or the TC comment list. ==============end of the SOU language to make the questionnaire data count
======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> wrote: If you all will now be soliciting Statements of Use, make sure they meet the requirements (definition 'ar' in the TC Process - https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process): the name the CS by title and version and include the approval date they refer to the conformance clauses they met they state whether the use included multiple independent interoperable implementations Here is an example of an SoU that meets those: I, Angus Telfer, as INETCO Systems Ltd's OASIS Primary Representative, endorse this Statement of Use from INETCO Systems Ltd. INETCO Systems Ltd. has successfully implemented the OASIS AMQP Version 1.0 Committee Specification 01 ""amqp-core-complete-v1.0-cs01.pdf" dated 20 July 2012 in accordance with the conformance clauses defined in Section 0.2 Conformance for Parts 1 through 5 of the specification. This use of the specification includes interoperation with other similar independent Also, the TC will at some point need to pass a resolution accepting the SoUs. On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote: The boiler plate could be as simple as this: (Please send feedback) The responses provided through this questionnaire are intended as a Statement of Use (SOU) for X My organization is an OASIS member [below is only relevant if they are OASIS member] X I am the primary representative of my organization in OASIS X This SOU will be endorsed by my organizations primary representative on the TC mailing list or the TC comment list.
======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote: This is the specification link Again, this is not yet life, but should become bfeore we start collecting the SOUs The spec should be identified using this block
======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote: Yves, thanks for this, very useful. especially the boiler plate, date and spec link. These indeed need to be added to fulfill the OASIS SOU requirement
======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote: Hi Lucia,
A few notes on the survey/SUO:
- in " Does your tool prevent the creation of duplicated trans-unit IDs? " we should have 'unit' not 'trans-unit'
- "21. Please select from the following required XLIFF attributes the ones that your tool can process:" list only some of the <xliff> element (trgLang is missing)
- " 17. Which XLIFF version does your tool support?" : I assume we will remove all version but 2.0?
- There should be a place for people to provide links to their implementation, extra info, etc. (a field labeled as such, not as a general comment area).
- All SOU I see at OASIS are looking like explicit statements, (see https://www.oasis-open.org/search/google/statment%20of%20use?query=statment%20of%20use) maybe we need a boiler plate text field for this. Something like:
[ ] do you want to make this survey response an official SUO And if yes, move to a page with the boilerplate text and a field for the name of the person/organization doing the statement and a check box saying 'I agree'. Or something similar.
I think we also need the version and date of the spec stated somewhere.
-ys
--
/chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393
--
/chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393
--
/chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393
--
/chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393
|