| ID |
Problems |
Meta-data |
Web Technologies |
Further discussion |
Dublin workshop |
Assessment |
| R1 |
|
|
|
Y |
N |
|
| R2 |
- P1: Transparency of processes;
- P2: Quality measures;
- P3: Web apis
- P4: Feedback, recycling, adaptation
- P5: Exchange of linguistic/non linguistic resources
|
- M1: cultural and social context
- M2: provenance of source
- M3: likelihood [?]
- M4: timeframe
- M5: self-validation (for LT)
- M6: feedback trigger [?]
- M7: process related data
|
- W1: need effective and efficient mark up for automation
|
Y |
Y |
- P1: addressed by requirements on process and provenance
- P2: supported by quality related data categories
- P3: Web service/APIs currently out of scope
- P4: possible requirement on provenance tracking
- P5: address by context and resource
- M1: addresses by context
- M2: addressed by provenance
- M3: unclear
- M4: addressed by process trigger
- M5: addressed by confidence score?
- M6: unclear
- M7: addressed by process trigger
- W1: addressed in general
|
| R3 |
|
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
| R4 |
- P1: Identifying content to translate
- P2: Optimising cost (TM reuse, minimise content to translate)
- P3: Lack of context (links between strings)
|
|
|
Y |
N |
- P1: addressed by combination of translate, droprule, and localeSpecificInforation
- P2: adddressed indirectly via provenance
- P3: address by context, BUT link between strings needs to be addressed
|
| R5 |
|
- M1: language
- M2: domain
- M3: terminology
|
W1: current tools satisfactory |
Y |
Y |
- M1: covered by ITS lang DC
- M2: Covered by proposed domain DC
- M3: Covered by ITS terminology DC
- W1: general point
|
| R6 |
X |
- M1: handling characters that should not change direction moving between ltr and rtl (see link)
|
- W1: tool need to automate insertion, checking and updating/correction of language-related meta-data
- W2: need ability to override automatic choices
|
Y |
Y |
- M1: to considered under directionality
- W1: general point, largely addressed
- W2: to be considered as non functional requirement
|
| R7 |
- P1: Extracting translatable strings;
- Format conversion, e.g. XLIFF, wikitext
|
|
- W1: exsiting standards poorly implements leading to proprietary variants
- W2: web service/APIs needed to support robust SOA orchestration and integration
|
Y |
N |
- P1: addresses through translate, drop rule, localespecific context
- W1: general point - how to reduce room for poor implementations
- W2: currently out of scope
|
| R8 |
|
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
| R9 |
|
- M1: translate
- M2: terminology
|
- W1: CMS import/export functions must be improved
- W2: choice in translation memory systems should be preserved
|
Y |
Y |
- P1: general requirements
- M1: addressed by translate
- M2: addressed by terminology
- W1: general requirement - how to reduce room for poor implementations
- W2: general requirement
|
| R10 |
- P1: Lack of context (WYSIWYG);
- Tool complexity at transaltion checking phase
|
- M1: translate
- M2: terminology
|
- W1: tool too complex and error prone, simpler, higher quality tools needed
- W2: more WYSIWYG support
|
N |
N |
- P1: need to consider under context
- M1: addressed by translate
- M2: addressed by terminology
- W1: general requirement - how to reduce room for poor implementations
- W2: need to consider under context
|
| R11 |
X |
X |
- W1: simpler and more user friendly tools
- W2: more open source and cheaper tools
|
Y |
Y |
- W1: general requirement - need to consider simplicity, in scope?
- W2: general requirement - probably not in scope?
|
| R12 |
- P1: Translating content containing tags;
- P2: Content spread across multiple logical units in soruce
|
- M1: Terminology
- M2: Directionality
|
- W1: better integration of terminology and support for changes in terminology during translation process
|
N |
N |
- P1: need to be considered
- P2: needs to be considered
- M1: addressed by terminology
- M2: addressed by directionality
- W1: change in terminology to be considered
|
| R13 |
X
|
- M1: meta-data is clearly understood (non functional requirement)
|
- W1: need to support diverse language groups within countries
|
Y |
Y |
- M1: to be considered in conduct of WG
- W1: to consider under language information
|
| R14 |
- P1: Entering and presenting special characters
|
|
|
N |
N |
|
| R15 |
- P1: On the fly translations
|
X |
X |
Y |
Y |
- P1: consider under process trigger
|
| R16 |
- P1: Lack target content preview;
- P2: Loss of context information; inconsistent segmentation and resulting TM loss;
- P3: Lack association with (multiple) glossaries and multimedia content;
- P4: Handling raw content in CAT tools with proper context
|
- M1: links to external references and applicable rules, at translation unit level
- M2: explicit markup of segementation beginning and end in response to unreliable segmentation rule implementations in CAT tools, especially in tagged text
- M3: links between content and related multimedia content, ranging from source code, screen shots, pictures, videos (including audio tracks, and voice overs [and subtitles], to ensure consistency between these different
|
|
Y |
N |
- P1: need to consider under context
- P2: need to consider under context, also could ITS markup result in TM loss. Is segmentation rule in scope?
- P3: need to consider linked to multiple external references
- P4: need to consider under context
- M1: need to consider linked to multiple external refenences
- M2: need to address in idvalue - should segeneration be included more explicitly
- M3: need to consider linked to other media - is there some link to media fragment linkage here?
|
| R17 |
- P1: ensure the meaning of a word in English is actually the same as in the translated language
|
- M1: Ensuring that the translated document resembles the original, including language [style] and tense
- M2: ensuring Technical Terminology is accurate,
|
- W1: better understanding of Technical Communications and Technical Writing and Document Presentation
|
|
|
- P1: address through quality assurance
- M1: address through quality assurance
- M2: need to consider link between terminology and quality assurance?
- W1: general requirement
|
| R18 |
- P1: lack of CMS-L10N technology causes translators to copy content from CMS, use CAT then paste back; copy HTML and paste back into CMS or use XML or XLIFF from CMS DB such that context is lost
- P2: Some CMS have problems with unicode
|
- M1: Meta-data about the visual and functional context where the translatable text operates,
- M2: context data provided as common object, interaction methods (e.g. dropdown menu, or positions, e.g. footer)
- M3: meta-data to allow translation tool to play/show/render the object, action etc involving translatable text
|
|
Y |
Y |
- P1: not in scope?
- M1: need to address in context
- M2: need to address in context
- M3: need to address n context and in general
|