Re: notes for FEISGILTT discussions

Thanks Christian, we'll take a look.

By the way, anectotally, both Pedro and I are finding a good high level 
of name recognition for ITS as we talk to people here at LocWorld, which 
is pleasing. Also, we've found there's been a wide range of 
presentations here where we've been able to stand up and point out where 
ITS might help with existing problems.

cheers,
Dave


On 14/06/2013 13:16, Lieske, Christian wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> DL> We need to identify overlaps and overlaps between XLIFF and ITS
>
> Possibly, the following material (presentation to which Yves Savourel, 
> Bryan Schnabel, Felix Sasaki and myself contributed) provides good input
>
> http://www.tekom.de/upload/2913/LOC12_Sasaki_Lieske.pdf
>
> An explicit section (THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ITS AND XLIFF) starts at
>
> http://www.tekom.de/upload/2913/LOC12_Sasaki_Lieske.pdf#page=37
>
> Caveat: The presentation revolved around ITS 1.0 and XLIFF 1.2.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> *From:*Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie]
> *Sent:* Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 13:22
> *To:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: notes for FEISGILTT discussions
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to Pedro and apologies for fogetting to include his 
> presentation, which included remote input from Karl and Mauricio for 
> an impressive international demo: "Interoperability Frankfurt-Madrid: 
> ITS 2.0 CMS to TMS showcase from London"
>
> We will put all the MLW-LT slides from FEISGILTT up on the WG wiki.
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
> On 14/06/2013 00:18, Dave Lewis wrote:
>
>     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 included  in government procurement guidelines  were
>     adherence to open standards, use of open srouce and avoidance of
>     lock-in is an important requirement.
>
>
>         XLIFF Session
>
>     David to provide summary
>