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

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

From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:22:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CANw5LKn6dpj67t3+=P9T00i7kiD5bMfRLEiOzSEW_OBOWOBbxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Cc: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Christian, all,
IMHO direct ITS support in CAT tools only makes sense if they are working
with source formats. Which is often the case, but is exactly the
undesirable formats and filters jungle that XLIFF had been set up to
simplify and override.
If a tool is an XLIFF extractor/merger it of course makes sense for them to
be able to recognize ITS directly at least in HTML5 and a number of
standard XML vocabularies.

Supporting ITS on extract/merge is very different (and complementary) from
supporting a translator consumption/manipulation of the categories during
XLIFF editing.

AFAIK OmegaT in neither incarnation is an XLIFF extractor/merger, it relies
on OKAPI to get its XLIFFs.
So as I see it, work on direct support of ITS in OmegaT does not make much
sense and is orthogonal to the mapping support.

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 Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com
> 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 10:23:23 UTC

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