- From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:58:59 +0100
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Thanks Dave, happy to enhance the proposed blob with this.. I was not sure if I am to go to the bitext interoperability explicitly, as this seems out of scope at ITS but in scope at XLIFF :-) This might need some careful wordsmithing to ensure that the different scopes are understood. I surely do not mean survival for the metadata's sake, rather speaking of not breaking the flow. I heard Loc Buyers complaining like this: we used translate="no" properly, our provider's tool chain just strips it as irrelevant code and returns everything translated :-( 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 Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > Hi david, > > On the first one, i think the driving motivation is not so much the > 'survival' of meta-data, but the by broader need for the smooth > interoperability between content management processes and localization > processes and unambiguous interpretation of meta-data using in both guiding > and reporting on the localization process. The latter is vital to assuring > translation service levels as well as for curating translations as bi-text > resources for future translation work. > > i think the above might point more directly to the business benefits of > using ITS. > > cheers, > Dave > > > > > > > On 08/10/2012 12:55, Dr. David Filip wrote: >> >> Hi all, sorry for being late in providing this text. >> Cheers >> dF >> >> Usage by Localization workflow managers >> >> Localization Workflow managers setting up new automated workflows >> originating in Content and Web Management Systems >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Owners of ITS decorated content want their internationalization and >> localization related metadata to survive the roundtrip. Localization >> workflow managers should pay attention to roundtripping the ITS data >> categories introduced by their customers up in the tool chain. There >> is also potential to interpret generic mark up in terms of ITS on >> extraction, eventually introduce relevant XML or HTML versions, or >> XLIFF mappings of ITS data categories during the localization >> roundtrip. Categories like “translate” should drive extraction of >> localizable context, terminology and disambiguation markup should be >> passed onto human and machine translators, proper interpretation of >> directionality mark up is a must for sound handling of bidirectional >> content using Arabic and Hebrew scripts. >> >> Localization Workflow managers hooking up their existing automated >> workflows to Content and Web Management Systems >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> The above considerations are especially valid when hooking up existing >> localization workflows upwards into the tool chain. Existing workflows >> should introduce mappings of ITS data categories used in source >> content, so that the metadata flow is not broken throughout the >> content life cycle, of which localization workflow is a critical value >> adding segment. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> > >
Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 16:00:13 UTC