- From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:21:57 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51BAFCD5.8090900@cs.tcd.ie>
Hi, Thanks to Pedro and apologies for fogetting to include his presentation, which included remote input from Karl and Mauricio for an impressive international demo: "Interoperability Frankfurt-Madrid: ITS 2.0 CMS to TMS showcase from London" We will put all the MLW-LT slides from FEISGILTT up on the WG wiki. cheers, Dave On 14/06/2013 00:18, Dave Lewis wrote: > Hi Guys, > Below are some notes from tuesday discussion session at FEISGILTT. We > welcome you thoguhts on some of these issues. > > Kind Regards, > Dave > > > FEISGILTT: Day two discussion > > 12 June 2013 > > > CMS Interoperability Session > > > Presentations: > > §David Lewis: CMS Interoperability Overview: identifies challenges > > §Bryan Schnabel (Tektronix): Integrating XLIFF into Drupal for complex > enterprise multilingual web content > > §Jesús Torres Del Rey, Experience in CMs based localisation with Joomla > > §David Filip: CMS-LION/SOLAS: CMS-XLIFF roundtrip workflow > > > CMS Interoperability Issues: > > The following issues were discussed: > > 1.Post localisation changes: how to deal with annotation or changes to > content after it can completed a localisation roundtrip, e.g. arising > from quality review or feedback from content consumers or content > strategy managers > > 2.In general, they are see as complementary, and are so by design. We > need to identify overlaps and overlaps between XLIFF and ITS: > > a.Overlap in translate/protect, term annotation > > b.XLIFF has competences in the following areas not addressed in ITS: > > i.segmentation/extraction, > > ii.bitext exchange and management > > iii.TM leverage > > 3.Similarly need to ITS competences not addressed by XLIFF. > > 4.Source segmentation and immutability/changability of segments and > their identifiers. Need to articulate the difference between XLIFF > (1.2 and 2.0) segmentation structure; xml:tm segementation structuring > and NIF URL recipes > > 5.Enriching the target content, with meta-data, e.g. from XLIFF or ITS > > 6.Key issue is persuading content creators to annotate source: > > 7.Explain how ITS source annotation can help with more consistent > extraction and segmentation, and therefore to leverage and consistency > benefits across (XLIFF-based) localisation workflows. > > 8.Does it make sense to start promoting ITS to content management > community and then use this as the wedge to promote XLIFF? > > 9.Need to consider how to leverage the growing interest in HTML5 to > promote ITS (and thereby XLIFF and their mapping) > > > ITS Session > > Discussion focussed on harmonisation/collaboration opportunities. > > This was in addition to discussion on Linport-ITS-XLIFF alignment on > the first day, where issues included: > > §Location of external ITS files in LinPort container > > §URL conversion on ITS Ref attributed when referencing a resource in > the same container, or another container with a known resource. > > §What specific external resources mentioned and referenced from ITS > could be included in LinPort > > > Common processing classifications > > Define common processing agent classification. XLIFF already defines: > > 1.Extract > > 2.Merge > > 3.Modify > > 4.Enrich > > ITS doesn't include any such classification in the spec (through this > was discussed during requirements gathering) We should create a table > mapping possible ITS use cases against ther classifications. To be > complete for ITS we should add perhaps two other complementary > classifications: > > 5.Internationalise > > 6.Post merge processing (enriching and perhaps annotation stripping) > > > XLIFF-ITS > > Current effort on ITS IG to be finalised. > > > ITS Module in XLIFF > > ABsed on the above mapping an ITS module for XLIFF 2.0 should be > developed. > > > Co-evangelization > > There seems good potential in evangelising ITS2.0 and XLIFF2.0 in > concert. Common messages to target at potential adopters, in > particular in localisation clients/content generators and content > management technology sector: > > 1.What do different ITS/XLIFF features empower specific content > creators/managers to do? > > 2.What annotation can be automated and how? > > 3.What are the benefits of these use cases for the clinet localisation > department > > 4.Promote ITS and XLIFF combination success stories accessible with > usable test cases and examples > > 5.Identify and integrate with best-in-class HTML5 editors > > 6.CMS integration in particular: > > a.We need to understand why L10n integration is not more of a priority > for CMS vendors > > b.Need to understand possible conflicts of interest, e.g. > > i.System integrators concerned with loosing work to standards based > solutions > > ii.CMS vendors interested in lock-in > > 7.In general, making the use case accessible for CMS clients is > probably the most direct route to persuading the vendors to include > features. Concretely: collaborate on developing a multilingual content > check list of features that purchasers of CMS could reference. This > could provide drill down to test suited that could be used in > procurement processes. Tie this into a reference implementation that > satisfies these features. > > 8.There is a potential to integrate Brian XLIFF drupal plugin and > Cocomore ITS plugin to provide a single drupal plug-in that could act > as a reference CMS implementation for multilingual CMS procurement > checklist. > > 9.Investigate development of a version of procurement checklist that > could be includedin government procurement guidelineswere adherence to > open standards, use of open srouce and avoidance of lock-in is an > important requirement. > > > XLIFF Session > > David to provide summary > >
Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 11:22:31 UTC