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

RE: notes for FEISGILTT discussions

From: Serge Gladkoff <serge.gladkoff@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:37:29 +0400
To: "'Dave Lewis'" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Cc: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <025b01ce694f$c202a850$4607f8f0$@gmail.com>
Hi Dave, Felix,

«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»

I think that the ideas will continue to pop up as ITS showcases will be
rolling out.

Why don’t we create a page for potential future implementation ideas, where
we could collect them and list them and allow for comments / further

Let’s call this page “ITS Implementations Incubator” – where ideas could
spread across the project participants, collect comments, grow and mature
until someone will back them up with funding to create an implementation

Felix, do you think that we can set such a thing up?



From: Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 7:17 PM
To: Lieske, Christian
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: 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.


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



                An explicit section (THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ITS AND XLIFF)
starts at


Caveat: The presentation revolved around ITS 1.0 and XLIFF 1.2.


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



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.


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,

FEISGILTT: Day two discussion 

12 June 2013

CMS Interoperability Session


§  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

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:


                                                             ii.      bitext
exchange and management

                                                            iii.      TM

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

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

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)


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.


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

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.

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

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

XLIFF Session

David to provide summary



Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 22:38:09 UTC

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