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

Re: [ACTION-222] Add section 1.3.5 on usage by localisation workflow managers

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:58:23 +0100
Message-ID: <5072EA0F.5090407@cs.tcd.ie>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi david,

On the first one, i think the driving motivation is not so much the 
'survival' of meta-data, but the by broader need for the smooth 
interoperability between content management processes and localization 
processes and unambiguous interpretation of meta-data using in both 
guiding and reporting on the localization process. The latter is vital 
to assuring translation service levels as well as for curating 
translations as bi-text resources for future translation work.

i think the above might point more directly to the business benefits of 
using ITS.

cheers,
Dave





On 08/10/2012 12:55, Dr. David Filip wrote:
> Hi all, sorry for being late in providing this text.
> Cheers
> dF
>
> Usage by Localization workflow managers
>
> Localization Workflow managers setting up new automated workflows
> originating in Content and Web Management Systems
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Owners of ITS decorated content want their internationalization and
> localization related metadata to survive the roundtrip. Localization
> workflow managers should pay attention to roundtripping the ITS data
> categories introduced by their customers up in the tool chain. There
> is also potential to interpret generic mark up in terms of ITS on
> extraction, eventually introduce relevant XML or HTML versions, or
> XLIFF mappings of ITS data categories during the localization
> roundtrip. Categories like “translate” should drive extraction of
> localizable context, terminology and disambiguation markup should be
> passed onto human and machine translators, proper interpretation of
> directionality mark up is a must for sound handling of bidirectional
> content using Arabic and Hebrew scripts.
>
> Localization Workflow managers hooking up their existing automated
> workflows to Content and Web Management Systems
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The above considerations are especially valid when hooking up existing
> localization workflows upwards into the tool chain. Existing workflows
> should introduce mappings of ITS data categories used in source
> content, so that the metadata flow is not broken throughout the
> content life cycle, of which localization workflow is a critical value
> adding segment.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. David Filip
> =======================
> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
> University of Limerick, Ireland
> telephone: +353-6120-2781
> cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
>
Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 14:54:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:55 UTC