XLIFF TC meeting

When:  Feb 18, 2020 from 11:00 to 12:00 (ET)
Description:

New dial-in link at this action item.

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3921



==========
Agenda:

I. Administration

 A. Approve meeting minutes for 21 January 2020
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202001/msg00002.html

 B. Meeting time, Doodle Poll

II. Where do we go next?
 A. XLIFF 2.X or 3.0 wiki space for new features (Bryan)
 https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/FeatureTracking

 B. Rendering Requirements for XLIFF 2.2 - David
 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201901/msg00001.html

 C. GALA TAPICC XLIFF Extraction and Merging Best Practice v1.0 Allison
 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201901/msg00003.html

 D. Registration file - Yves
 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201902/msg00006.html

 E. New comment from Yves
 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/201911/msg00000.html
 Issue #34: Lynx - XLIFF files created with missing subFlowsEnd attribute and found Valid (okapiframework/xliff-toolkit)

 F. Invalid sample files identified by Rodolfo Raya

 G. XLIFF calls, Steven Loomis
 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201912/msg00000.html

 H. Features, Steven Loomis
 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201912/msg00001.html

 I. FragID prefix registration, Rodolfo
 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202002/msg00000.html

III. Subcommittee and sister TC reports
 A. Promotion and Liaison SC
 B. XOMOS - Sister TC

IV. New business



==========
Minutes:

I. Administration

Participants : Rodolfo, Steven R Loomis, Phil, Lucía, Bryan, Tom.

B: We have quorum. It is good to have Steven and Rodolfo on board.

 

A. Approve meeting minutes for 21 January 2020

B: I move to approve the meetings https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202001/msg00002.html

P: I second.

B: Meetings approved.

 

B. Meeting time, Doodle Poll.

B: My interpretation is that people prefer one meeting per month. For some reason, I did not see the doodle poll, it went to my spam folder.

P: I think that I joined in the meeting on the 3rd of February but I was the only one there.

B: Sorry about that.

B: Is my interpretation correct?

P: Once a month is definitely my preference.

R: The majority wanted once a month.

B: Is it hard to meet in this timeslot (Tuesday)?

S: I have another call, but I can move it, since this one is important.

B: Thank you for your availability.

 

II. Where do we go next?

A. XLIFF 2.X or 3.0 wiki space for new features (Bryan)
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/FeatureTracking

B: It is good that we have Steven here. [Bryan shares his screen and goes through the list of proposes features]. We have some features that are owned by TC members. We have one approved feature (rendering requirements).

R: Can anybody explained why this [rendering] is necessary? Because the idea behind XLIFF is to separate the content from the format (that can be included in the skeleton).

P: I have a feeling that it is to have a kind of preview and to give context.

S: Could it have to do with the editor?

R: Yes, this can be done in the editor itself. There is no need at all to have that in the standard.

P: If I recall well, think the examples that I saw were related to software, it would be more to have context rather that WYSIWYG solution.

R: That is why you have the binary in the XLIFF standard, that is specifically for that.

B: There is a paper where David explains this topic.

R: I read that paper, I did not see the justification in there for that effort.

B: I would propose that as David is not here, that we move this discussion for another meeting when he will be here. This is discussion definitively needs to be continued.

R: Ok, I agree with that.

 

B: The next feature is TM Profile Note. There is no owner for this feature.

R: I find it quite interesting. Can we do something with the matches module?

B: my memory is that we wanted to do something with it.

B: I propose to have the LISA standards as modules

R: I think it would be nice to have some of RSX representation.

B: We also have Segmentation Method Roundtrip that is related to it.

R: it would be interesting to have the segmentation rules embedded in XLIFF.

S: At least to have a complete reference of the rules and it changes were made.

R: Exactly, that sounds interesting.

B: It sounds interesting to me as well. We could vote on this to become a feature to 2.2.

R: We would need to define if segmentation can be integrated or if we need a pointer to an external SRX file

S: The minimum would be to define that segmentation has occurred. When files get processed, it would be helpful to know that segmentation has occurred.

B: What about the rest of the members, any thoughts on this?

L: I also agree that it would be good to have it.

T: Agree

R: I can draft something and then have the TC to discuss on it. In any case, it would be optional, nobody would be forced to use it.

B: Perfect, so Rodolfo it would be great it you could draft on it and then we can discuss it again.

 

B: The next one is Change Tracking module. Phil is the owner of that feature.

P: I think I should maybe change that. I had proposed some time ago and I have changed my thinking on it. I need to go back to it and have my head around it.

B: My though is that Yves found an issue with it.

P: Yes, it goes back to 2.1

 

B: Semantic domain for placeholders. It is owned by Steven.

S: I worked on it extensively. I need to leave now but I will give you more details on that.

P: It looks similar to some stuff that we did with the ITS module.

S: I will look into it, thanks.

 

B: SubSegment Matching and Referencing. Can anybody comment on this?

P: I cannot comment, I am afraid.

R: If we do changes in the matches module, we can add span to do the referencing. I will not be surprised if an existing mechanism is already there that would allow us to do it.

B: So, we need to check if this is already present. Rodolfo, could you do it?

R: Yes, I can look into it.

 

B: Moderninzing OF Schematron.

R: the problem is the current schematron cannot validate XLIFF. So we can replace it or expend a lot of time making it more useful. Is there is somebody willing to do it?

B: Tom, would you be interesting into this?

T: I wasn't working on the Schematron files.

T : I also don't recall who was working on it.

L: I think it was David and Soroush.

B: ok, we can launch the discussion again when David will be here.

 

B: Extract and Merge best practices note.

R: David wrote a paper on this, my name is there because I was part of TAPPIC. It would be good to prepare white papers and published them apart from the specification.

B: Yes, I think that there are some procedures in OASIS for this.

R: You do that as committee notes, it can be done. Years ago, it was even required to have a white paper published. That paper is still at 1.2 level.

B: Can you become the owner of this?

R: we need more than one writer.

B: Is anybody on the call that can partner with Rodolfo?

R: Don’t you have this in the agenda? [Rodolfo refers to item GALA TAPICC XLIFF Extraction and Merging Best Practice v1.0 Allison
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201901/msg00003.html]

B: Yes, ok, it is there.

 

 

 

C. GALA TAPICC XLIFF Extraction and Merging Best Practice v1.0 Allison
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201901/msg00003.html

 

D. Registration file - Yves
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201902/msg00006.html

B: The problem about the registration file, it was a quick fix that was already done. I will remove it from the agenda.

 

 

E. New comment from Yves
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/201911/msg00000.html
Issue #34: Lynx - XLIFF files created with missing subFlowsEnd attribute and found Valid (okapiframework/xliff-toolkit)

R: The subflow problem is related to the validation artifact of the XLIFF tc. I think it is related to the schematron files.

B: this is more evidence that the schematron needs more work. Ok, thankS Rodolfo.

 

 

I. FragID prefix registration, Rodolfo
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202002/msg00000.html

I saw that the FragID was mandatory outside the specification. I was curious to know why is not the spec.

B: If I recall well, we were advised to it by OASIS.

R: the question is why is not required on the spec. The wiki says that you must register, but the specification does not say it.

B: Ok, I see it and agree it.

R: Yes, maybe it is a note that can be included in the next spec.

B: I will answer to this email and include this as a new feature for the next spec.

R: Yes, or simply remove the requirements on the wiki.

 

 

III. Subcommittee and sister TC reports
A. Promotion and Liaison SC

L: We have not got a meeting recently.

 

B. XOMOS - Sister TC

P: for the OMOS, I think the last meeting it was only David and me. We were talking about creating more momentum and working on the spec.

 

 

IV. New business

B: It great to have a good momentum here. Meeting adjourned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



==========
Attendance:
Meeting Statistics
Quorum rule 51% of voting members
Achieved quorum yes
Individual Attendance Contributing Members: 6 of 23 (26%)
Voting Members: 4 of 5 (80%) (used for quorum calculation)
Company Attendance Contributing Companies: 4 of 12 (33%)
Voting Companies: 3 of 4 (75%)