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%)
|