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

Thanks Dave, happy to enhance the proposed blob with this.. I was not
sure if I am to go to the bitext interoperability explicitly, as this
seems out of scope at ITS but in scope at XLIFF :-)
This might need some careful wordsmithing to ensure that the different
scopes are understood.

I surely do not mean survival for the metadata's sake, rather speaking
of not breaking the flow.

I heard Loc Buyers complaining like this: we used translate="no"
properly, our provider's tool chain just strips it as irrelevant code
and returns everything translated :-(


Dr. David Filip
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dave Lewis <> wrote:
> 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:

Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 16:00:13 UTC