[xliff] Charter discussion for today's meeting...

Hi 
All,

Attached is the 
discussion so far on the proposed XLIFF 
1.1 Charter.  We hope to 
agree the charter at today's meeting, so please read the attachment and 
send any additional comments to me before today's meeting. 

 

Questions for 
discussion today are marked in red.

 

Regards,
Enda

 

  
  

    
      

Alchemy 
      Software Development Ltd. 
Block 2 Harcourt Business Centre 
      
Harcourt Street 
Dublin 2 
Ireland 

      
Tel 
      : (353)-1-708 2817 
Fax : (353)-1-708 2801 
Web :www.AlchemySoftware.ie

      
 

      
 

    
      

 

 

Title: Xliff 1.1 Charter Discussion

XLIFF 1.1 Charter Discussion

Topics to be discussed at today's meeting are marked in 
red, please read them in advance of the meeting.
         At the 
meeting we will endeavour to sign off 
the charter, so please reply with any objections now.

Open issues are marked such in this document.  
Discussion topics, 
where possible, are numbered chronologically.  To facilitate further 
discussion, however, topics appear with the most recent item first.

Contents

(4) - Proposal to Meeting on 9th July
   (3) - Amended Charter 
from Face to Face Meeting
      
 (2) - Queries on Proposal & related threads, Open issues 
        (1) - Charter 
Proposal from Face to Face Meeting 

(4) Charter containing all proposals to meeting of 9 
July 2002, not accepted yet!

This charter is a collection of all the proposed changes.  It 
serves as a guide to the context of each of the proposed changes below 
(marked in red)

"The purpose of the OASIS XLIFF TC 
is to define, through XML vocabularies an extensible specification for the 
interchange of localization information.  The specification will provide 
the ability to mark up and capture localizable data and interoperate with 
different processes or phases without loss of information. The vocabularies will 
be tool-independent, and support the localization-related aspects of the 
internationalization process and the entire localization process. The 
vocabularies will support common software and content data formats. The 
specifications will provide an extensibility mechanism to allow  the 
development of tools compatible with an implementer's own proprietary data 
formats and workflow requirements."

 

(3) Ameded 
Charter From Face to Face Meeting ( 9 May 02 )

             
         
             
           
          
         
  Taking into account some of the discussion so far, 
the following is the current charter proposal.  As some items remain 
open issues, this charter is not considered final. 

Excluding currently open issues (which need further discussion), 
it is assumed that you agree with this charter unless you 
provide feedback .

 

"The purpose of the OASIS XLIFF TC is to define, through XML vocabularies an extensible 
specification for the interchange of localization information.  The specification will 
provide the ability to mark up and capture localizable data and interoperate with 
different processes or phases without loss of information. The vocabularies will 
be tool-independent, and support aspects of the internationalization process and 
the entire localization process. The vocabularies will comprehensively support 
common software and content data formats. The specifications will provide an 
extensibility mechanism to allow the development of tools compatible with an 
implementer's own proprietary data formats and workflow domains."

 

 

    
  (2) - Queries on Proposal, Related Threads & Open Issues

    The following queries were raised by Eric on the 9th May 
2002 in reply to the face to face meeting.  The topic areas raised by Eric have 
also been continued, the conversation threads are listed.  Remaining open items are marked such.

Extensibility
Vocabularies - Open Issue
Markup 
vs. Capture - Open Issue
Standardized
Aspects of the i18n process - Open Issue
Comprehensively support common software and content data 
formats - Open Issue
Company Culture - Open Issue
Reduction in scope - Open Issue

 

 

Query - Extensibility

Discussion (9 July 02):
This is closed 

(2) -  Mtg (9 May 02):
We would like to leave this as extensibility is seen as 
something that is core to XLIFF. We agree with the comments on stadardizing and 
intend to define a formal method for extensibility.

(1) -  Eric (9 May 02): 
Why the strong emphasis on 
extensibility in the first sentence? (It gets pride of place among all the other 
adjectives). Extensibility, done correctly, is important, but it's not the 
*most* important thing we're doing, is it? I note that extensibility is covered 
in the last sentence of the proposal, so I'd recommend dropping this first 
reference to it. I would like to see us standardize everything we can possibly 
standardize, and then provide targeted extensions points for problems we cannot 
resolve as a last resort. 

 

 

Query - 
Vocabularies - Open Issue

Discussion (9 July 02):
Does the group accept the following 
"The purpose of the OASIS XLIFF TC is to define, through XML vocabularies an 
extensible specification for the interchange of localization 
information.  The specification will provide the ability to mark up and 
capture localizable data and interoperate with different processes or phases 
without loss of information"?

(5) - Enda (9 July 02):
I agree with Tony 
that the word vocabularies may not be clear, however, once we 
mention 'XML vocabularies', I think people  now what we are referring 
to.  I also think the first sentence is becoming unweildy and have broken 
it into two above.

(4) - Tony (4 June 02):
   I'm not happy with the word itself: 
"vocabulary" has too many common,  non-technical definitions that come 
to mind.  The word does not effectively get the concept across 
of an "XML vocabulary" consisting of Schema's,  DTD's and 
specifications.  Also,  I have not heard many people or 
websites use the term in this context.   

I would prefer to use the word "specifications" and / 
or "Schema" or "DTD",  where appropriate,  rather than 
"vocabularlies".  If,  however,  the group prefers to keep 
"vocabularies" in the Charter,  then I suggest we be more explicit and we 
extend the term to explicitely indicate "XML vocabularies",  with 
explanation provided "eg., XML schema's,  DTD's,  
specifications".         
          
             
         

 

(3) -  Eric (9 May 02):
This is a reasonable compromise: I suggest dropping the 
parenthetical (i.e. formats, schemas), however, as it sounds like we're 
uncertain about what we're doing. If all of these things are roughly synonymous, 
let's just pick one and use it without fear. :-)

(2) -  Mtg (9 May 02): 
vocabularies refers to XML vocabularies (XML tag set) and we shall 
rename this 'XML vocabularies'. 

(1) -  Eric (9 May 02): 
"vocabularies" -- I'm not sure that this is the best word to 
capture (what I assume to be) your intent. A vocabulary is simply a list of 
words, with accompanying definitions. It says nothing about the syntax of a 
language in which those words are used, but syntax should definitely be part of 
the charter. Obviously you meant more than vocabulary allows, which is why I 
think another word would be better. Your parenthetical "formats, schemas" is a 
good start. I would lean toward "schemas" because that has specific meaning in 
the world of XML.

 

 

Query 
- Mark up vs. Capture - Open Issue

Discussion (9 July 02):
Does the group accept the clause 
"...that will provide the ability to mark up and capture localizable data 
..."?

(3) - Eric (9 May 02):
OK, that makes sense, but then OR needs to be an 
AND, since these are never mutually exclusive activities. Also, it seems to me 
that the usual complement to "marking up a document" is "processing a document," 
not "capturing a document." Suggest replacing "capture" with "process."

(2) - Mtg (9 May 02):
 'capture' would usually refer to parsing and 'mark up' would refer 
to authoring. As per Gerard's proposal.

(1) - Eric (9 May 02):
What distinction are you trying to express with 
"mark up or capture"? It's not clear to me.

 

 

Query - Standardized

Discussion (9 July 02):
This is closed 

(2) - Mtg (9 May 02):
 This is agreed.

(1) - Eric (9 May 02):
In the second sentence, "standardized" is begging 
the question: we are a standards body defining a standard, hence it's 
standardized. I would drop this word.

 

 

Query - 
Aspects of the i18n process - Open Issue

Discussion Question (9 July 02):
Does the group accept the 
sentence "The vocabularies will be tool-independent, and support the 
localization-related aspects of the internationalization process and the entire 
localization process."?

 

(4) - Yves (28 May 02):
To follow up on the 
charter discussion: By "support aspects of the internationalization process" we 
meant the part of internationalization pertaining to localization 
('localizibility' as the W3C call it).

Maybe a simple rewording could make it clearer:
Current: "The vocabularies will be 
tool-independent, and support aspects of the internationalization process and 
the entire localization process."
Proposed: "The vocabularies will be 
tool-independent, and support the localization-related aspects of the 
internationalization process and the entire localization 
process."

(3) - Eric (9 May 02):
I agree with desire to be concise, but would like 
to see specificity too. Are there high-level goals that can be enumerated and 
looked at as alternatives to "aspects of the i18n process?"

(2) - Mtg (9 May 02):
 This refers to mark-up (such as 
localisation directive). We have taken the view to be consise in the charter and 
have a detailed white paper which will more fully explain all issues.

(1) - Eric (9 May 02):
"aspects of the i18n process." Someone reading the 
charter must be able to discover what problems we propose to solve. More needs 
to be said here.

 

 

Query - 
comprehensively support common software and content data formats - Open 
Issue

Discussion Question (9 July 02):
Does the group accept the 
sentence "The vocabularies will support common software and content data
formats"?

(4) - Enda (9 July 02):
I think the word comprehensively is too strong 
here, suggest dropping it from "The vocabularies will comprehensively 
support common software and content data formats"

(3) - Eric (9 May 02):
Sure. You say that support must be "comprehensive." 
This suggests that XLIFF will attempt to *completely* describe very specific 
properties of particular content types. This is a tall order, especially because 
those content types evolve independently of one another and of XLIFF. That's 
what I understand from this part of the charter. Is that what you intend?

(2) - Mtg (9 May 02): 
Can you explain this in more 
detail. We are not sure what you mean.

(1) - Eric (9 May 02):
What do you mean, exactly, by "comprehensively 
support common software and content data formats" ? This can mean a lot of 
things, including the extraction into content+skeleton and back again, which I 
doubt is intended.

 

 

Query 
- Company Culture - Open Issue

Discussion Question (9 July 02):
Does the 
group accept the following sentence "The specifications will provide an 
extensibility mechanism to allow  the development of tools compatible with 
an implementer's own proprietary data formats and workflow 
requirements"

(4) - Enda (9 July 02):
I agree         with Eric,  I think 
that "data formats and workflow requirements" captures what we are 
about.

(3) - Eric (9 May 02):
         Suggest "workflow requirements" 
as alternate phrasing -- "workflow domains" is slighly awkward to my ear.

(2) - Mtg (9 May 02):
 The objective is to deal with 
workflows and processes as defined by propietary requirements. We have agreed to 
change this to 'workflow domains'.

(1) - Eric (9 May 02):
What's the thinking behind "company culture" ? I 
have never seen a technical specification that mentioned this as an objective. 
What does it mean in the context of this charter?

 

 

Query - Reduction in scope - Open Issue

Discussion Question (9 July 02):
Does the group adopt a 
version of the charter that does not specifically state that xliff will be a 
"format that will allow any software provider to produce a single interchange 
format that can be delivered to and understood by any localization service 
provider"?

(3) - Eric (9 May 02):
I'm not asking about the 
"software provider" vs. "content provider" issue, which I agree you've 
addressed. Rather, my question is: why did you decide to drop the goal that XLIFF will allow any content producer to interoperate with 
any service provider?

(2) - Mtg (9 May 02):
 We are not reducing scope as we 
addressing content as an issue aswell as software.

(1) - Eric (9 May 02):
Why did you decide to drop "format that will allow 
any software provider to produce a single interchange format that can be 
delivered to and understood by any localization service provider" ? This is a 
big reduction in scope -- what's the thinking behind it?

 

 

 (1) Face to Face Meeting's proposal for charter (9 May 02)

The following charter was proposed at the face to face meeting held on the 
9th May 2002.

"The purpose of the OASIS XLIFF TC is to define specifications for extensible 
localization interchange vocabularies (i.e. formats, schemas) that will provide 
the ability to mark up or capture localizable data and interoperate with 
different processes or phases without loss of information. The vocabularies will 
be tool-independent, standardized, and support aspects of the 
internationalization process and the entire localization process. The 
vocabularies will comprehensively support common software and content data 
formats. The specifications will provide an extensibility mechanism to allow the 
development of tools compatible with an implementer's own proprietary data 
formats and company culture."