Re: notes for FEISGILTT discussions

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
>
>