RE: [QUAR] Re: ITS Mapping Update - What is the plan?

Yes, I agree with Felix.
(and with David's previous email too).

-ys

-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:] 
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:35 PM
To: Renat Bikmatov (Logrus.Net)
Cc: Yves Savourel; ; 
Subject: [QUAR] Re: ITS Mapping Update - What is the plan?

Hi Renat,

Am 21.08.2014 um 20:39 schrieb Renat Bikmatov (Logrus.Net) <>:

> Hi Yves,
> 
> We are considering to further develop our ITS 2.0 implementation project aimed at visualization of content and ITS metadata - this
time for XLIFF 2.0 content. I asked the developer to look at the ITS 2.0 mapping schema for XLIFF 2.0
(http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_2.0_Mapping), and he has found several inconsistences and/or omissions. So my
question is:
> 
> Do you think it is worth for us to participate in further development and debugging of the current ITS-to-XLIFF 2.0 mapping
specification (if this is still in progress) - OR- Does it make sense to wait until ITS 2.0 is implemented as XLIFF 2.x Module
(hopefully, in near future)?


Yves may have a different answer, here is mine: the mapping is being developed in the wiki and nothing else has happened in XLIFF TC
about it. So it would make a lot of sense to know about the inconsistencies and omissions here before the mapping is finalized.

Best,

Felix

> 
> Regards,
> Renat Bikmatov | IT and Localization Solutions Architect | Senior Localization Project Manager | +7 (495) 646-3564, ext. 110
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 5:48 PM
> To: 
> Cc: 
> Subject: ITS Mapping Update
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> (CCing the XLIFF TC for information, as the idea is to make this into a module)
> 
> An update on the ITS mapping for XLIFF 2:
> 
> As discussed in Dublin last month and in this morning ITS-IG call, we are looking at classifying the ITS data categories into
several classes:
> 
> - the one for which there is a direct XLIFF mapping (so nothing to implement),
> - the ones partially covered in XLIFF,
> - the ones without equivalent in XLIFF
> - the ones that are not metadata (and therefore not really to be 'mapped')
> - and several ones not mapped yet
> 
> The latest draft is here:
> https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_2.0_Mapping
> 
> Feedback and suggestions welcome, especially on the data categories not mapped yet, like Directionality, Storage Size, etc.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> -yves
> 
> 
> 
> 
>