Hi all, since I did not get any contrary voices or amendment requests by the deadline, I am hereby publishing the attached pdf as the meeting minutes of record.
I will also store the document at OASIS kavi.
@Micah, I would also store your slides as reference if you could provide them.
Rgds
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:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 13:27, Dr. David Filip <> wrote:
Hi all,
attached please find draft meeting minutes from our infocall with Interoperability Now!that we held on Wed last week.
The same text is pasted bellow [bottom].
Please alert me of any misinterpretations, misunderstandings, or otherwise distorted meaning captured in the minutes contrary to actual talk in the infocall.
I am taking amendments until Wed, Feb 15, NOON PST.
Please propose only specific amendments. I will not be able to implement general and style related comments.
Thereafter I will display the minutes as official record of the meeting.
Thanks for your attention
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:
XLIFF Promotion and
Liaison SC INFOCALL Minutes
Interoperability
Now! Presentation of Results and Discussion of Next Steps
Attendees
XLIFF TC: Bryan Schnabel, David Filip, David Walters, Peter
Reynolds, Lucía Morado, Andrezj
Zydroń, Christian Lieske, Helena Shih Chapman, Andrew
Pimlott,
IN!: Peter
Reynolds, Micah Bly, Sven Andrä, Andrezj
Zydroń, Andrew Pimlott, Chase Tingley,.
General Public: Kevin O’Donnell
Minutes
[Intro]
David: The meeting will run as this: 20
minutes presentation, 20 discussion, 20 next steps.
Micah Bly is giving a presentation: [Presentation will be linked or attached once
Micah provides it.]
"Who we are", “Who initiated”,” What we do”, “Approach
(agile implementations, practical, pragmatic, open)”, “Aims”.
XLIFF:doc is a reference
guide to representing documents in XLIFF files. They couldn’t wait for XLIFF
2.0. Tailored for some source formats (Office, FrameMaker, InDesign, XML).
Restricts the use of some XLIFF features to simplify and defines some
extensions for added features. Has processing expectations, separately for tools
that create XLIFF:doc and those that process it.
Some restrictions and simplifications: segmentation, join/split
handled through <group>. One target language. One field for trans-unit
status.
Some added features: simple terminology embedded. HTML preview. QA
information. Target revisions.
TIPP: [ZIPped]Container that allows the seamless exchange of
information between different TMSs. Share content (translations and resources),
metadata, and some process information. (...)
[Presentation end, XLIFF:doc]
Micah presents the
XLIFF:doc Representation Guide.
[The version that Micah
is walking through on screen is this: http://interoperability-now.googlecode.com/files/XLIFFdoc%20Representation%20Guide_v0.95.pdf]
These documents [their
current versions] are available publicly through the Interoperability Now
webpages:
http://code.google.com/p/interoperability-now/
http://www.interoperability-now.org
[Intro end, Discussion start]
David: Questions from the audience?
Bryan: Any issues that the XLIFF TC can
help you with?
Micah: I would like to know to what the
XLIFF TC thinks of it. We use it as glue for different systems in our company,
for us it is a real thing.
Bryan: We are very interested in your work
and we’d like to take it as industry input for XLIFF 2.0?
Sven: To me it would be nice to see what
you are doing and know what the relation is between both efforts?
David: I think we should ask the question
the other way round.. I have a question from Kevin, he asks you, Interoperability
Now! guys, how you see the relationship between XLIFF 2.0 and XLIFF:doc.
David: I think XLIFF 2.0 is having a really
good momentum. I think you say that you are not a standardisation body but you
are behaving like one. What about your exit strategy?
Bryan: Perhaps, OAXAL would be a venue for
some of your ideas..
Micah: I think that is a good question:
relation between XLIFF 2.0 and XLIFF:doc. I think XLIFF:doc can be implemented
by any tool now, it is a short term solution. By summer we will have five tools
implementing it. When would this happen with XLIFF 2.0?
Bryan: I would say that XLIFF 2.0 failed if
it is not approved as standard a year from now.
Micah: are you saying that people are doing
this now? I think it would take two or three years before people implements it.
Sven: One of the things we did in XLIFF:doc
we decrease [implementation] freedom to increase interoperability... I think
XLIFF 2.0 should provide the long term solution. XLIFF:doc will be good for up
to 5 years.
David: I feel like it would be good if
XLIFF:doc business critical features would be pushed into XLIFF 2.0, it would
be good. I believe at least a couple of members of your group should join the
TC, and push your extensions into the standard proper.
Micah: Is there time to do that?
David: There is a lot of work to be done,
and features are being developed in parallel.
Micah: I wish we were faster than we are.
Chase: We need to push the features of
XLIFF:doc into XLIFF 2.0.
David: I think the view is to push features
into XLIFF 2.0, use your spec as industry input for XLIFF 2.0, we just need to
see if they are warranted and constitute improvement compared to status quo. It
makes total sense to do that.
Micah: I don’t disagree. We use extensions
because the features we wanted were not there and they were all business critical
to us. In an ideal world instead of putting that information into extension it
should be included into the standard itself. Time wisely, we are not in a good
place.
Chase: It is what it is. I think we all
agree that we want a format that we can all understand. The problem is how to
get there. The question I would have is: “How is the TC is going to avoid the
inconsistencies in implementations that are notorious for 1.2”, my concern is
that within the one year timeline that Bryan mentioned, interoperability won’t
be improved.
Bryan: In the TC, we asked if we should be
calendar driven or milestone driven, and the answer was milestone driven. I
apologize if that give the impression that we don’t have tome for accommodating
your contribution to the standard’s development...
David: I agree with Bryan. And there is a
specific ballot approving that approach for the time being. But I think it is
time to change that and put a calendar date on it. We are having a good
momentum and should take advantage of it, we cannot afford to let that momentum
dissolve before finalizing the spec…
Micah: How the XLIFF TC sees the importance
of interoperability.
Bryan: We recognise that extensibility has
been a double-edge sword. We feel that there were features that were in the
standard, but some implementers decided to use their own extensions to cover
them. So I think the mood in the TC is to try to avoid this risk.
David: it is not just the mood. We also
have specific ballots mandating processing requirements all over the spec. But,
as we want the new spec to be tighter, we also must have strong industry
representation. OASIS now enforces compliances clauses and we see this as an
opportunity, our clause will say that all processing requirements must be honoured
in order to pass as compliant.
Christian: For XLIFF:doc you edited some
capabilities that are not available in XLIFF 1.2, like doing some xsl rendering
of html previews, is that right?
Micah: yes.
Christian: What about IPRs of your stuff,
can it be taken used, and developed elsewehere?
Micah: That will be totally fine.
Chase: that is right. You are very welcome
to use it? We would be only glad if you “stole” it and made it XLIFF 2.0 J
Christian: the other question is the wiki
page says that you are working with the Linport project. What is the status of
this relation?
Chase: we started talking to them in TM
Europe because we have some points in common. And we talk regularly.
Micah: that also relates that we do not
want to be a standard body.
Peter: I think Linport is moving into a
standardization body, is that right?
Chase: not sure, there will be a Linport
call soon. But they will most probably end up in OASIS.
David: Did the Linport guys did something
else than the zip file? You both say that zip is just one of possible forms..
Chase: We are trying to coordinate with
them. But there is stuff like instructions to [human] translators that has not
automation impact but we can represent it.
David: I do not think that their current
work is related to XLIFF 2.0.
Christian: I think it is worth exploring
XLIFF:doc and study in depth how this can help the current work on XLIFF 2.0.
David: I think the practical thing would be
ask Interoperability people to tell the TC which business critical features should
be transfer to XLIFF 2.0. Andrew is in both groups, so if you [Andrew] could,
it would be great if you could expand the features wiki [section 2] with business
critical XLIFF:doc features.
Andrew: I am not an official core member of
Interoperability Now.
Bryan: it would be nice to have a direct
liaison between the groups (more than one person maybe).
Chase: we need to talk about this more. Is
the xliff 2.0 wiki up to date?
David: some of the features there are so
rich that they will constitute a whole module. The feature tracking wiki is
divided into three sections. Section 2 – proposed, Section 1 – Approved (can go
into core or module later), Section 3 – Discarded.
David: We are running out of time.. Any
other opinions what the next steps should be?
Micah: what about one of the TC members working
with Interoperability Now! and report the other way around?
David: We need somebody who understands
very well both formats and can push features from yours to the standard.
Micah: We do not have a person who understands
XLIFF 2.0 very well. The other way round would be easier. XLIFF:doc is
straightforward.
David: It is more important to understand
XLIFF:doc than XLIFF 2.0. XLIFF 2.0 is in flux and feature approval process
will sort it out.
Micah: I am interested but before my
company did not allow me to join AOSIS bacuase of IPR issues.
David: Strange, OASIS IPR policies are just
as any other’s open standards body, is your company Medtronic not involved in
any standardization efforts whatsoever?
David: Proposed action: Micah will try and
propose what features of XLIFF:doc can be transfer to XLIFF 2.0. David to help
Micah explore options for joining TC.
David: Thanks everybody.
[Meeting adjourns.]
Attachment:
XLIFFP&LSC_INFOCALL_20120201_Minutes_of_Record.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
