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, 30 Oct 2012 15:21:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL58czrHYw5XHUNV5EYtHehD8moGoE2OR-CXjJkN0BU2TMF_oQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi all,

since this thread got stuck I tried to come up with a general description
on my own, basically copying the style of the other potential users. See

http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#users_localization_workflow_managers

Comments welcome.

Best,

Felix

2012/10/9 Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>

> 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 14:22:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:56 UTC