[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] A Burgeoning Initiative
| Hi all, I'd be happy to provide updates on this effort. To respond to Helena�s question about UBL, we spent about a month working with UBL before determining that it was actually not suitable for what we were doing. UBL worked on a different paradigm (it was aimed more at business transactions while we were looking at project metadata) and was extremely complex to implement. While the complexity is a one-time hit on the developer (subsequent users of a UBL-compliant format don�t see that complexity), we found that the mismatch between our needs and the UBL model combined with the complexity of UBL were too great in the end. Alan Melby had a developer working on trying to create UBL-compliant schemas for the project metadata portion for about a month before we concluded that it was a dead-end for us. This accounts for some of the delay in becoming more public since the project was agreed upon on March 1 in Danvers, MA. Finally, I second Yves' note: We would invite all parties interested in constructive dialogue on this topic to join the discussion there. Best, Arle On Jun 24, 2011, at 09:53 , Helena S Chapman wrote: Arle is also involved in that project, I believe. Initially, it was discussed to integrate whatever the results this "container" team would produce into OASIS' UBL TC. Not a clue if that's still the case. The original intent is to standardize on all the metadata associated with a content package as you described. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]