W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > April 2012

Additional workflow steps

From: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:52:30 +0200
Message-Id: <F018FD5E-FB93-4E06-980B-346EED67C889@gmail.com>
To: Multilingual Web LT Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hello all,

In going through the workflow chart (the public link is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Av8I1YVQlYmsdElxU0g3cXlfaTZZRVpSOFl4UlczcFE&output=html) and I have identified a number of possible workflow items/tools for inclusion in our chart that are not yet addressed (or that are addressed at a courser level). Since adding all of these would almost double the number of categories we have, I don't want to simply throw them into the table, and some of them may not warrant our full attention, especially if they would work with only a few of the categories.

So my question is which of the following should we add into the chart? Adding them does not mean that we will address them directly ourselves at the implementation level, but rather that we want to consider their requirements (and possibly reach out to developers in those areas) so that we do not end up with a metadata item that ends up deficient for use in a real end-to-end solution.

Here is the list:

Translation Management System (TMS)
for traditional outsourced localization
for crowdsourced/community/social translation
Terminology Extraction and Management (could be broken into two functions since Extraction has more in common with the current Enrichment step)
Localization (I'm thinking this needs to be split away from translation because the function and requirements of e.g., Alchemy Catalyst, are very different from a translation-oriented tool like Swordfish.
Translation Server (I tend to think this may be one we can set aside, but maybe I'm wrong)
Workflow management system
Review (break out from QA?)
Translation Memory (step within translation)

Before I start adding these in, are there any thoughts about what to add? Obviously, we want to keep this to a sane level of complexity, so I'm open to arguments to cut as much as possible, but I think we'll need at least a few of these in the chart (or, more likely, two charts, so the chart isn't super huge).


Received on Friday, 13 April 2012 07:53:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:43 UTC