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: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:12:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czqsooys8H=mGX53WF=bX8rfrYHpL7H0ztEvexxw92Zjaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Hi David, all

The description itself looks adequate, I am just thinking about the
relation to other subsections, e.g. About text analytics, mt, content
producers etc. Would it make sense to write your section in the same,
rather general style?

Best,

Felix
Am 09.10.2012 17:50 schrieb "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>:

> Hi all, another go with Dave's feedback implemented
> 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 inform the roundtrip and return in a
> meaningfully processed state that allows for drilling down into the
> process and for reconstructing the audit trail. Localization workflow
> managers should pay attention to information flows directed by the ITS
> data categories introduced by their customers up in the tool chain.
> There is also potential to introduce an automated or semi-automated
> ITS decoration step before extraction, eventually introduce relevant
> XLIFF or other bitext format mappings of ITS data categories with
> translations during the localization roundtrip and map them onto ITS
> in XML or HTML on reimport of localized content. Categories like
> “translate” should drive extraction of localizable content;
> 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. Self reported machine translation confidence should be
> passed onto the content recipients along with quality assurance
> related metadata.
>
> 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
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote:
> > 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 :-(
> >
> > Cheers
> > dF
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> 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: david.filip@ul.ie
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 17:13:05 UTC

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