[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DITA Translation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: 27 August 2007
Gershon L Joseph Director of Technology and Single Sourcing Tech-Tav Documentation Ltd. Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Secretary, OASIS DITA Translation Subcommittee Member, OASIS DocBook Technical Committee +972-8-974-1569 (direct) +972-57-314-1170 (mobile) http://www.tech-tav.com
DITA Translation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: 27 August 2007
(Recorded by Gershon L Joseph <gershon@tech-tav.com>)
The DITA Translation Subcommittee met on Monday 27 August 2007
at 8:00 PT for 70 minutes.
1) Roll Call
Present:
JoAnn Hackos (chair)
Gershon Joseph
Nick Rosenthal
Don Day
Rodolfo Raya
Kara Warburton
Robert Anderson
2) Accept Minutes from 13 August 2007
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/TranslationSubcommittee)
Accepted by acclamation.
3) Review open action items
3.1 ACTION: Gershon to investigate whether he can use a client's samples.
Gershon will assemble all the examples into the template for the TC;
need to add the examples to the Multilanguage Best Practice.
CONTINUED.
3.2 ACTION: Gershon and Don will present the approved best practices on
indexing, conrefs, Translation Memory, and multilanguage as committee
drafts for approval by the DITA Technical Committee.
CONTINUED.
JoAnn downloaded the Word template for OASIS white papers again. The previous
template was completely corrupted.
Don brought up the option of developing stylesheets for DITA to produce
the OASIS white paper style.
Decision to try using the new OASIS Word template.
Rodolfo offered to take a stab at cleaning it up.
ACTION: JoAnn to create a zip with the source content and latest Word template
and post to the list. Whoever has time to try cleaning up the files will
do so.
3.5 ACTION: Rodolfo will continue to work on the Best Practice for XLIFF
CONTINUED.
3.6 ACTION: JoAnn will try writing the sort order addition to the indexing
Best Practice for review.
CONTINUED.
3.7 ACTION: JoAnn will contact Richard Ischida to get clarification on the
need for a pronunciation element or attribute for the acronym proposal.
CONTINUED.
4) Returning business:
4.1 Discuss the changes to Andrzej and Rodolfo's acronym proposal. See the
Wiki below. Consider Andrzej's additions in response to Kara's comments.
See Deborah's email.
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/TranslationSubcommittee)
Discussion on the fact we need to refine the requirements for this proposal.
JoAnn: What's the difference between acronym and abbreviation?
Rodolfo: If you decide to expand the abbreviation the first time, it's
no different from acronym.
Kara: DITA is not just an authoring format, it's a CMS format. As such,
we've been experienceing a critical requirement to handle texts that
are smaller than phrases. Acronyms and abbreviations are a special set;
proper nouns, short forms, synonyms are other special cases. This acronym
proposal touches on areas that are not just for acronyms. I'm concerned
we will have only partial coverage with this acronym proposal.
Don: Maybe this should be under the terminologist umbrella.
JoAnn: We were interested in the acronym proposal because many organizations
were wanting to use conref as a mechanism to provide an acronym, to provide
the flexibility to change or move the acronym in and out of a master
list. I thought abbreviations might work the same way. Though many publishing
groups probably dont need a well-defined list of abbreviations, where they
do need a well-defined list of acronyms. So we have this issue of needing
flexibility in creating and adding acronyms to text and having flexibility
in online presentation. My point of view was the issue of conref and online
presentation.
Rodolfo: When Andrzej and I started working on this proposal, we based
it on multiple DITA files with conrefs everywhere. We wanted a mechanism
to publish acronyms for publishing acronyms (expanding first use) and for
translation.
JoAnn: Second part (aside from publishing) is can we provide a way to deal
with the first instance effectively and then provide a mechanism that makes
the translation of acronyms straight-forward? Especially in cases where
the acronym is not translated.
Don: We must give the TC an action to comment on the requirements document
for the acronym proposal.
Discussion...
JoAnn expressed concern whether combining acronyms and these other terms
is good for the general documentation community for managing terminology.
JoAnn: Many users will be using a terminology database or tool. I don't
see the handling of acronyms coming from a terminology point of view. They
are not all usually stored inline in the document. Who is our audience
at this point for the DITA spec? I think we're talking about 2 audiences:
terminologist + publishing. There is some overlap. It was designed to make
people aware that conreffing an acronym leads to problems in translation
that people were not aware of. Moving into the terminology realm is a whole
new layer of complexity beyond our previous goal of making users aware of
issues they could hit in translation. The term variant is a huge jump.
Will publications people looking at DITA understand the point?
Don: Our input from stakeholders should include both architect and publishing
sides.
Kara: The proposal I put forward is not from a terminoloty perspective,
it's from a translation perspective. Translators need a well-formed context
for the translation. We have to extract terms for tranlation in order to
pretranslate terminology before the documentation is ready to be translated.
All we are asking is for the writer to identify "this is a sentence that
is meaningful to this term". This is new territory in content management
that authors need to be aware of. Markup of terminolgy and inline definitions
is new, and it's important we support this in DITA.
Don suggested an action for us to make certain the wording in which we
frame the scope of this requirement document sets the background that Kara
just set. How big do we want this idea to go? I'd like to put the requirements
in front of the TC tomorrow and take a week to make sure everyone has had
a chance to address the scope of the requirements, and then another week
to work on the actual requirements.
JoAnn: Is our scope definition ready to take to the TC?
Robert: We have to agree on requirements. I feel the next step is to ask
the TC to proposse requirements. We should ask the TC to add requirements
to the list.
JoAnn: I'd like to at least go and explain what and why the term variant
is there.
ACTION: Robert to edit the list of requirements to clarify ahead of tomorrow's
TC meeting so that the TC can be asked to review and add/modify reqs as needed.
-- over time; meeting adjourned --
4.2 Continue discussion of Deborah Pickett's thoughts on the ruby attribute
4.2 Discuss Rodolfo's proposed additions to the Indexing best practice.
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/TranslationSubcommittee
DEFERRED to next meeting.
5) New Business
5.1 Comment on the W3C working draft.
A W3C working draft document entitled "Best Practices for XML
Internationalization" was published last week.
It includes a section on DITA at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xml-i18n-bp-20070628/#dita
DEFERRED to next meeting.
5.2 Continue consideration of the ruby attribute
Some discussion has begun on the yahoo group about the ruby attribute.
See Deborah Pickett's notes.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]