W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [ISSUE-55] ITS in XLIFF - CAT tool requirements

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:08:26 +0200
Message-ID: <51764F8A.2050206@w3.org>
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org, serikova@tcd.ie, Christian Saam <saamc@scss.tcd.ie>, John Moran <moranj3@cs.tcd.ie>
Hi Dave, all,

it seems that various requirements which already have been fleshed out 
in the document are relevant to both the XLIFF scenario and to tool 
support in general, e.g.
[
Source segments or subsegments annotated by its:withText set to nested 
or no, should have these two options differentially indicated to the 
tool user. No indication is needed if the value is yes, since this would 
be the assumed state from segment to segment.
]
So maybe it is possible to have both perspectives at the same time in 
mind? E.g. via a table based approach - column 1 "XLIFF specific", 
column 2 "general"?

Best,

Felix

Am 23.04.13 10:14, schrieb Dave Lewis:
> Hi Christian,
> Yes you make a good point about these requrirements being desiarable 
> even without XLIFF, but I made that decision deliberately to get the 
> most benefit from this task for both CAT tool ITS support _and_ the 
> ITS-XLIFF mapping work.
>
> I'd suggest we press on with the XLIFF based approach, and see what we 
> learn from using OmegaT as a reference implementation, and then we 
> could attempt to generalise the wording requirements. What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On 23/04/2013 08:58, Lieske, Christian wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> I wonder if Anuar's work could, or even should look at the CAT-ITS 
>> relationship not just from an XLIFF point-of-view.
>>
>> To me, a scenario in which CAT tools in some contexts work natively 
>> with ITS - and not "mediated" via XLIFF - seems appealing. Possibly, 
>> you already know that some CAT tools already provide this kind of 
>> native ITS 1.0 support.
>>
>> To a certain degree, the native ITS support would be in line with "To 
>> foster interoperability, implementers are strongly encouraged not to 
>> rely on these mappings and to implement the ITS 2.0 quality types 
>> natively." (from: 
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissue-typevalues).
>>
>> The existing list of "Use Cases" is quite interesting. I would be 
>> tempted to differentiate between two categories: "visualization", and 
>> "interaction".
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Christian
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie]
>> Sent: Montag, 22. April 2013 03:00
>> To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>> Subject: [ISSUE-55] ITS in XLIFF - CAT tool requirements
>>
>> Hi all,
>> As you may know, we have an intern Anuar Serikov, who will be working on
>> support for ITS annotation in the open source CAT tool OmegaT.
>>
>> As an first step we've produced a rough draft set of requirements for
>> how users of a CAT tool could interact with ITS2.0 annotations at:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vt3a3wWFPFrEG8tS9X3RMClKVjV8xDXqWNHB4g8VGJw/edit?usp=sharing 
>>
>>
>> This may be of interest in those looking at the XLIFF-ITS mapping, since
>> the requirements assume use of ITS within XLIFF. Any comments or
>> feedback would be very welcome.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 09:08:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:07 UTC