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

Re: [ACTION-377] Provide rewrite of section 1 and 2 - Overall structure for introduction and text for "Overview"

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:44:18 +0100
Message-ID: <51A37F52.7050408@cs.tcd.ie>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Christian,
Some comments:

1) you define three phases, /internationalisation, translation and 
localisation /with cross reference to the existing W3C 
internationalisation Q&A. However the latter seems to subsume 
translation within localisation, so this appears inconsistent.

2) Also, limiting ourselves to these three phases, I feel somewhat 
undersells the end-to-end use cases for ITS2.0. For instance the support 
for localisation QA, including crowd-sourced review in LQR, and the 
usefulness of some mark up in the published content in certain 
circumstances, e.g. for publication of raw MT for lower value, more 
perishable content (where provenance and mt confidence could be useful).

3) I'm not sure we should put the XLIFF mapping on the same par as the 
NIF one, the former is not addressed directly in the document, referring 
instead to the best practice, while NIF is supported by normative text.

4) The current text does not say much about the *drivers* for 
interoperability in the language services business, primarily the 
relatively poor state of interoperability between tools, the gulf 
especially between CMS and TMS/CATtools and the often long value chain 
involved in localisation workflows, e.g. between client, MLV, multiple 
SLVs, LSPs conducting reviews and 3rd party vendors of MT or text 
analytics services. It is these complex, but increasingly commoditised 
provider and tool value chains that heightens the need for good 
end-to-end interoperability.

let me know what you think.

Do you have a word version so we could provide inputs and track changes 
more directly between us, David and anyone else who has input, until it 
is ready to go into the document?

cheers,
Dave




On 27/05/2013 12:48, Lieske, Christian wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I used yesterday's bad weather in my area to continue work on what we 
> discussed as "rewrite of section 1-2" (see 
> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/377). The 
> result of that work is twofold:
>
> a.I devised (based on 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0018.html) 
> an overall structure for the "Introduction" (see below)
>
> b.I revised the sub-part related to "Overview" (see my earlier mails, 
> and the revision below)
>
> Should we base further work on the aforementioned two results? If so, 
> I would start working 1.2 ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
> *1 Introduction***
>
>
>       1.1 Overview
>
> Content or software that is authored in one language (so-called 
> original language) for one locale (e.g. the French-speaking part of 
> Canada) is often made available in additional languages or adapted 
> with regard to other cultural aspects. A prevailing paradigm for the 
> corresponding approach to production in many cases encompasses three 
> phases: internationalize, translate, and localize (see the W3C's 
> Internationalization Q&A 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n/> for more 
> information related to these concepts).
>
> From the viewpoints of feasibility, cost, and efficiency, it is 
> important that the original material should be suitable for downstream 
> phases such as translation. This is achieved by appropriate design and 
> development. The corresponding phase is referred to as 
> internationalization. For example, people authoring in languages such 
> as Arabic, Hebrew, Persian or Urdu need special markup to specify 
> directionality in mixed direction text.
>
> During the translation phase, the meaning of a source language text is 
> analyzed, and a target language text that is equivalent in meaning is 
> determined. In order to promote or ensure a translation's fidelity, 
> national or international laws may for example regulate linguistic 
> dimensions such as mandatory terminology or standard phrases.
>
> Although an agreed-upon definition of the localization phase is 
> missing, this phase is usually seen as encompassing activites such as 
> creating locale-specific content (e.g. adding a link for a 
> country-specific reseller), or modifying functionality (e.g. to 
> establish a fit with country-specific regulations for financial 
> reporting). Sometimes, the insertion of special markup to support a 
> local language or script is also subsumed under the localization 
> phase. For example, people authoring in languages such as Arabic, 
> Hebrew, Persian or Urdu need special markup to specify directionality 
> in mixed direction text.
>
> The technology described in this document - the /Internationalization 
> Tag Set (ITS) 2.0/ addresses some of the challenges and opportunities 
> related to internationalization, translation, and localization. ITS 
> 2.0 in particular contributes to concepts in the realm of meta data 
> for internationalization, translation, and localization related to 
> core Web technologies. ITS does for example assist in usage scenarios 
> in which parts of an XML-based document should not be translated. ITS 
> 2.0 bears many commonalities with is predecessor, ITS 1.0 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-its-20070403/> but provides additional 
> concepts that are designed to foster enhanced automated processing - 
> e.g. based on language technology such as entity recognition - related 
> to multilingual Web content.
>
> ITS proposes several mechanisms which differ amongst others in terms 
> of the usage scenario/user types for which the mechanism is most 
> suitable. For the purpose of illustration, here is an example how ITS 
> can indicate that certain parts of content should not be translated.
>
> Example 1: Use of ITS to indicate that parts of an XML-based document 
> - maybe to be transformed into HTML by a Web Content Management System 
> (WCMS) - should or should not be translated
>
> The |its:translate="no"|attributes indicate that the |path|and the 
> |cmd|elements should not be translated.
>
> *<help*xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"its:version="2.0"*>*
>
> *<head>*
>
> *<title>*Building the Zebulon Toolkit*</title>*
>
> *</head>*
>
> *<body>*
>
> *<p>*To re-compile all the modules of the Zebulon toolkit you need to 
> go in the *<path*
>
> its:translate="no"*>*\Zebulon\Current Source\binary*</path>*directory. 
> Then from there, run
>
> batch file *<cmd*its:translate="no"*>*Build.bat*</cmd>*.*</p>*
>
> *</body>*
>
> *</help>*
>
> [Source file: examples/xml/EX-ways-to-use-its-0.xml]
>
> Like ITS 1.0, ITS 2.0 both identifies concepts (such as "Translate" ), 
> and defines implementations of these concepts (termed "ITS data 
> categories") as a set of elements and attributes called the 
> /Internationalization Tag Set (ITS)/ . The definitions of ITS elements 
> and attributes are provided in the form of XML Schema [XML Schema] 
> <#xmlschema1> (non-normative) and RELAX NG [RELAX NG] <#relaxng> 
> (normative). Since one major step from ITS 1.0 to ITS 2.0 relates to 
> coverage for HTML, ITS 2.0 also regulates the relationship between ITS 
> markup and the various HTML flavours. Furthermore, ITS 2.0 suggests 
> when and how to leverage processing based on the XML Localization 
> Interchange File Format (XLIFF), as well as the Natural Language 
> Processing Interchange Format NIF (NLP Interchange Format) 
> <http://nlp2rdf.org/nif-1-0> .
>
>
>       1.2 General motivation for going beyond ITS 1.0
>
>
>       1.3 Broader Usage Scenarios
>
>
>       1.4 High-level differences between ITS 1.0 and ITS 2.0
>
>
>         1.4.1 Additional data categories
>
>
>         1.4.2 Modified data categories
>
>
>         1.4.3 Additional or modified mechanisms
>
>
>           1.4.3.1 Query language on rules element
>
>
>           1.4.3.2 Modified selectors
>
>
>           1.4.3.3 Parameters in selectors
>
>
>           1.4.3.4 Traceability (toolsRef)
>
>
>         1.4.4 Specific HTML support
>
>
>         1.4.5 Mappings
>
>
>         1.4.5.1 NIF
>
>
>         1.4.5.2 XLIFF
>
>
>         1.4.6 Unicode normalization
>
>
>         1.4.7 Extended implementation hints
>
Received on Monday, 27 May 2013 15:44:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:09 UTC