Re: notes for FEISGILTT discussions

(Moving thread to the interest group)

Hi Serge,

Am 15.06.13 00:37, schrieb Serge Gladkoff:
>
> 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 discussion?
>
> 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 project?
>
> Felix, do you think that we can set such a thing up?
>
We have set up an implementation overview page, see
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Its_implementations
it is empty, but the idea is that current and proposed implementations 
are added here - by everbody working on these. No grouping yet, but one 
can have e.g. "low level parsing" (e.g. Cocomore, Okapi, Tilde), editing 
support, ... please contribute :)

Best,

Felix

> Regards,
> Serge
>
> *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.
>
> 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
>     <mailto: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
>