W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > June 2013

notes for FEISGILTT discussions

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:18:49 +0100
Message-ID: <51BA5359.3050102@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hi Guys,
Below are some notes from tuesday discussion session at FEISGILTT. We 
welcome you thoguhts on some of these issues.

Kind Regards,
Dave


  FEISGILTT: Day two discussion

12 June 2013


    CMS Interoperability Session


      Presentations:

§David Lewis: CMS Interoperability Overview: identifies challenges

§Bryan Schnabel (Tektronix): Integrating XLIFF into Drupal for complex 
enterprise multilingual web content

§Jesús Torres Del Rey, Experience in CMs based localisation with Joomla

§David Filip: CMS-LION/SOLAS: CMS-XLIFF roundtrip workflow


      CMS Interoperability Issues:

The following issues were discussed:

1.Post localisation changes: how to deal with annotation or changes to 
content after it can completed a localisation roundtrip, e.g. arising 
from quality review or feedback from content consumers or content 
strategy managers

2.In general, they are see as complementary, and are so by design. We 
need to identify overlaps and overlaps between XLIFF and ITS:

a.Overlap in translate/protect, term annotation

b.XLIFF has competences in the following areas not addressed in ITS:

i.segmentation/extraction,

ii.bitext exchange and management

iii.TM leverage

3.Similarly need to ITS competences not addressed by XLIFF.

4.Source segmentation and immutability/changability of segments and 
their identifiers. Need to articulate the difference between XLIFF (1.2 
and 2.0) segmentation structure; xml:tm segementation structuring and 
NIF URL recipes

5.Enriching the target content, with meta-data, e.g. from XLIFF or ITS

6.Key issue is persuading content creators to annotate source:

7.Explain how ITS source annotation can help with more consistent 
extraction and segmentation, and therefore to leverage and consistency 
benefits across (XLIFF-based) localisation workflows.

8.Does it make sense to start promoting ITS to content management 
community and then use this as the wedge to promote XLIFF?

9.Need to consider how to leverage the growing interest in HTML5 to 
promote ITS (and thereby XLIFF and their mapping)


    ITS Session

Discussion focussed on harmonisation/collaboration opportunities.

This was in addition to discussion on Linport-ITS-XLIFF alignment on the 
first day, where issues included:

§Location of external ITS files in LinPort container

§URL conversion on ITS Ref attributed when referencing a resource in the 
same container, or another container with a known resource.

§What specific external resources mentioned and referenced from ITS 
could be included in LinPort


        Common processing classifications

Define common processing agent classification. XLIFF already defines:

1.Extract

2.Merge

3.Modify

4.Enrich

ITS doesn't include any such classification in the spec (through this 
was discussed during requirements gathering) We should create a table 
mapping possible ITS use cases against ther classifications. To be 
complete for ITS we should add perhaps two other complementary 
classifications:

5.Internationalise

6.Post merge processing (enriching and perhaps annotation stripping)


        XLIFF-ITS

Current effort on ITS IG to be finalised.


        ITS Module in XLIFF

ABsed on the above mapping an ITS module for XLIFF 2.0 should be developed.


        Co-evangelization

There seems good potential in evangelising ITS2.0 and XLIFF2.0 in 
concert. Common messages to target at potential adopters, in particular 
in localisation clients/content generators and content management 
technology sector:

1.What do different ITS/XLIFF features empower specific content 
creators/managers to do?

2.What annotation can be automated and how?

3.What are the benefits of these use cases for the clinet localisation 
department

4.Promote ITS and XLIFF combination success stories accessible with 
usable test cases and examples

5.Identify and integrate with best-in-class HTML5 editors

6.CMS integration in particular:

a.We need to understand why L10n integration is not more of a priority 
for CMS vendors

b.Need to understand possible conflicts of interest, e.g.

i.System integrators concerned with loosing work to standards based 
solutions

ii.CMS vendors interested in lock-in

7.In general, making the use case accessible for CMS clients is probably 
the most direct route to persuading the vendors to include features. 
Concretely: collaborate on developing a multilingual content check list 
of features that purchasers of CMS could reference. This could provide 
drill down to test suited that could be used in procurement processes. 
Tie this into a reference implementation that satisfies these features.

8.There is a potential to integrate Brian XLIFF drupal plugin and 
Cocomore ITS plugin to provide a single drupal plug-in that could act as 
a reference CMS implementation for multilingual CMS procurement checklist.

9.Investigate development of a version of procurement checklist that 
could be includedin government procurement guidelineswere adherence to 
open standards, use of open srouce and avoidance of lock-in is an 
important requirement.


    XLIFF Session

David to provide summary
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 23:19:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:32 UTC