- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:21:55 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czrHYw5XHUNV5EYtHehD8moGoE2OR-CXjJkN0BU2TMF_oQ@mail.gmail.com>
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