Description: Date: Tuesday, 17 January 2007
Time: 11:00am - 12:00pm ET
Event Description:
Standing monthly XLIFF TC Teleconference.
1. Call one of the MeetingPlace phone numbers:
From the AMER region dial: * 1-888-967-2253 * +1-650-607-2253
From the APAC region dial: * +61 2 8817 6100
From the EMEA region dial: * +44 118 924 9000
2. Enter the Meeting ID (805534) followed by the # key
3. If the organizer has not started the meeting you will be:
A. Asked to speak your name followed by the # key
B. Placed in the waiting room on music hold until the organizer starts the meeting.
If the organizer has started the meeting you will be:
A. Asked to enter the Meeting Password (030543)
B. Asked to speak your name followed by the # key
==========
Agenda: Agenda:
1/ roll call
2/ Approve Previous meeting minutes **(also attached at the end of this agenda)
Accept, reject, or amend.
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/event.php?event_id=12663
3/ XLIFF 1.2 Specification status, and possible timeline for approval as a standard
A. Public Review ended Sunday, January 21
B. Tuesday, January 23 - TC Roll call vote: Approve Request for initiation of a Committee Spec Ballot; a “yes” vote means you approve the TC Chair to request that the TC OASIS Administrator initiates a TC Ballot to approve XLIFF 1.2 as a Committee Specification
(Quick outline of the next steps, and possible timeline)
C. Monday, February 5 – (Assuming TC approves the ballot [10 days]) Bryan (and Tony) submit a TC (via email) ballot for TC approval to submit the XLIFF 1.2 Committee Specification to the membership of OASIS for consideration as an OASIS Standard
D. Wednesday, February 14 – (Assuming TC approves the ballot [10 days]) Bryan (and Tony) request TC OASIS Administrator to submit the XLIFF 1.2 Committee Specification to the membership of OASIS for consideration as an OASIS Standard
E. Thursday, March 1 – (assuming all conditions have been met) TC OASIS Administrator submits the XLIFF 1.2 Committee Specification to the membership of OASIS for consideration as an OASIS Standard
i. There are a number of conditions TC OASIS Administrator may check [(a) through (k) at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#3.4]
ii. Let's discuss the requirements regarding certification from that list:
"(f) Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations
that they are successfully using the specification;"
F. Thursday, March 15 – OASIS members have until the end of the month to vote (1st 14 days are reserved for OASIS members familiarizing themselves with the spec)
G. Monday, April 2 – If at least 15% of OASIS voting membership has voted to approve, and no negative votes, XLIFF 1.2 becomes an OASIS Standard. What if it fails?
4/ XLIFF 2.0 - Life after approval of XLIFF 1.0
A. Brainstorm the future of XLIFF 2.0
B. Create a concrete list of goals
"Simplify, Extend and Clarify" (Magnus Martikainen, 09November2006)
C. Review highlights of the F2F Strategic Planning Session:
i Reference implementations or toolkit(s) similar to DITA
ii XLIFF validator tool to be included in a toolkit
iii Submitting to ISO once XLIFF becomes an OASIS standard
iv Additional Representation Guides (DITA,.NET / Win32, Docbook)
v XLIFF Round Trip tool could be modified to support:
(DITA/ITS -> XLIFF -> Translated DITA model)
vi Subsetting / restricting XSD as proposed by Christian
vii Version control Metadata - need to track revision information
viii Ability to store Multilingual Content.
ix Create a bare-bones XLIFF core,
then provide extension modules that support additional features.
x "Simplify, Extend and Clarify"
(Core XLIFF functionality would be in primary XLIFF namespace; would be very simple to implement.)
(Extensions would provide support for more complicated features like, Segmentation, Pre-Translation, Generic Inline Markup, etc.)
xi Schema Catalogues; host a namespace Catalogues
for XLIFF 3rd party custom / extension namespaces.
xii More work on inline-elements:
(Separate inline elements from other elements? Maybe as an extension? Stronger rules for when to use each inline tag?)
xiii Define a multi-lingual "Localisation Kit" format, which may include:
(XLIFF content + original source material+ all target language files+ skeleton files + reference files + some sort of manifest document describing/defining the payload.
xiv Using XLIFF as a primary content authoring container.
(Author stores contend directly to XLIFF instead of another proprietary format.)
xv Terminology Markup
(Has been suggested by Kara Warburton of IBM some time ago to support terminology markup such as translate (yes/no), subject-categorization, type, etc.)
5/ Reports from liaisons involved with other standards groups:
A. W3C i18n
B. Oscar
C. Trans-WS
D. LRC
E: OASIS DITA Translation Subcommittee
6/ Any Other Business
** Previous meeting minutes ============================
1/Welcome and Introductions
2/Surveyed Recent XLIFF TC Deliverables
3/Remaining 1.2 Deliverables
We are hoping to complete the 1.2 deliverables by end of year with submission to Standards process by end of year.
4/Strategic Planning
a. What’s next after XLIFF 1.2?
The group discussed what to work on after 1.2 and there was broad consensus that the next step would be XLIFF 2.0.
Wider adoption evangelism was still seen as an important objective for near term XLIFF TC work.
Reference implementations or toolkit(s) similar to what DITA now provides. Possibly develop an XLIFF validator tool to be included in a toolkit - to go beyond what XSD validation provides (eg., verify that language/country codes are correct).
Consider submitting to ISO when and if XLIFF becomes an OASIS standard.
i. Additional Representation Guides?
It was proposed and discussed that a DITA representation guide - more of a best practices spec - should published. This may be complimentary or supplementary to the DITA Translation Best Practices. Not clear yet if required.
The .NET / Win32 document may be worked on but the binary resource format is probably not feasible to define - would focus on the XML based resource format only.
ii. Guides / Reference Implementations for Interoperability with Other Standards?
It was suggested that the XLIFF Round Trip tool could be modified to support DITA/ITS -> XLIFF -> Translated DITA model.
The TC is very supportive of a closer working relationship with ITS and DITA.
iii. XLIFF Revision? XLIFF 1.2 or XLIFF 2.0?
The next revision was agreed to be a 2.0 release.
It would be a significantly revised architecture.
It was agreed that the TC should begin collecting and prioritising XLIFF 2.0 features.
The TC discussed key Missing feature candidates for XLIFF 2.0:
Subsetting / restricting XSD as proposed by Christian
Lack of normative Skeleton file definition and use.
Version control Metadata - need to track revision information
Ability to store Multilingual Content. Can now use alt-trans, but not documented or normative.
Create a bare-bones XLIFF core, then provide extension modules that support additional features.
"Simplify, Extend and Clarify"
Core XLIFF functionality would be in primary XLIFF namespace and would be very simple to implement.
Extensions would provide support for more complicated features like Segmentation, Pre-Translation, Generic Inline Markup, etc.
for example, could have an extension for revision control features.
Possibly use Schema Catalogues; possibly even host (via OASIS?) a namespace Catalogues for XLIFF 3rd party custom / extension namespaces.
More work on inline-elements:
Separate inline elements from other elements? Maybe as an extension?
Stronger rules for when to use each inline tag? There is some confusion about when to use each inline tag. Need more and better examples.
Create models for how different XLIFF users can best use XLIFF
Define a multi-lingual "Localisation Kit" format, which may include XLIFF content + original source material + all target language files + skeleton files + reference files + some sort of manifest document describing/defining the payload.
Using XLIFF as a primary content authoring container. Author stores contend directly to XLIFF instead of another proprietary format.
Terminology Markup? Has been suggested by Kara Warburton of IBM some time ago to support terminology markup such as translate (yes/no), subject-categorization, type, etc.
iv. Adoption Evangelism?
No specific suggestions or plans, but widely encouraged to continue to publish articles and papers/presentations.
v. Does our TC Charter accurately reflect what we’re working towards?
No changes for now.
b. Membership
Medtronics was suggested as a company we would like to invite as a member - Rodolfo to make contact
We also invite Lingotek, producer of a translation search engine product extensively using XLIFF. Tim Hunt - founder - joined the F2F as an observer.
c. TC Leadership
Bryan will play a larger role in leadership of the TC moving forward, as Tony indicated he will need to scale back his participation after end of year. Rodolfo agreed to take the role of Editor moving forward. We welcomed Peter continuing in role of TC Secretary.
Bryan & Tony (through end of year): Co-Chairs
Rodolfo: Editor;
Peter: Secretary;
d. TC Practices
We decided to keep the present monthly meeting cycle of the 3rd Tuesday @ 4pm BST / 11am EST. We agreed to stay with teleconferences rather than try to move to email only.
Should we use a Wiki? Yes - should for collaborative work... use to store information like for FAQ but not for storing all work committee work...
Need to define a set of common rules for how to use the Wiki.
Explore a Source Control system if available.
Explore the possibility of submitting XLIFF to ISO for certification. This would mean it would be required for government use... would encourage wider adoption.
5/ Action Item Review & Closure
Bring these suggestions back to the XLIFF TC for further brainstorming sessions.
============================
==========
Minutes: Agenda:
1/ roll call
Bryan was in the Chair.
There were 8 present as record in Kavi.
Apologies: Christian
2/ Approve Previous meeting minutes **(also attached at the end of this agenda)
Accept, reject, or amend.
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/event.php?event_id=12663
Minutes agreed as a correct record – Rodolfo proposed and Tony seconded.
3/ XLIFF 1.2 Specification status, and possible timeline for approval as a standard
A. Public Review ended Sunday, January 21
The Public review has ended and there were no comments for January other one which Rodolfo has already addressed. Bryan checked that the meeting was in agreement with this and it was. The Public review is considered successful and we now move on to the next stage.
B. Tuesday, January 23 - TC Roll call vote: Approve Request for initiation of a Committee Spec Ballot; a “yes” vote means you approve the TC Chair to request that the TC OASIS Administrator initiates a TC Ballot to approve XLIFF 1.2 as a Committee Specification
There was a unanimous vote to ask that the TC OASIS Administrator initiates a TC Ballot to approve XLIFF 1.2 as a Committee Specification
Bryan outlined the remainder of the steps in moving towards being an OASIS standard.
C. Monday, February 5 – (Assuming TC approves the ballot [10 days]) Bryan (and Tony) submit a TC (via email) ballot for TC approval to submit the XLIFF 1.2 Committee Specification to the membership of OASIS for consideration as an OASIS Standard
D. Wednesday, February 14 – (Assuming TC approves the ballot [10 days]) Bryan (and Tony) request TC OASIS Administrator to submit the XLIFF 1.2 Committee Specification to the membership of OASIS for consideration as an OASIS Standard
E. Thursday, March 1 – (assuming all conditions have been met) TC OASIS Administrator submits the XLIFF 1.2 Committee Specification to the membership of OASIS for consideration as an OASIS Standard
i. There are a number of conditions TC OASIS Administrator may check [(a) through (k) at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#3.4]
ii. Let's discuss the requirements regarding certification from that list:
"(f) Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations
that they are successfully using the specification;"
A number of organisations were identified as ones which could provide certification. These were SDL (Magnus), SAP (Christian), Lionbridge (Fredrik) and Idiom (Peter). Bryan will contact the people concerned shortly.
F. Thursday, March 15 – OASIS members have until the end of the month to vote (1st 14 days are reserved for OASIS members familiarizing themselves with the spec)
G. Monday, April 2 – If at least 15% of OASIS voting membership has voted to approve, and no negative votes, XLIFF 1.2 becomes an OASIS Standard. What if it fails?
Whitepaper – Rodolfo agreed to review the whitepaper. Tony or Peter will supply him with the previous version.
Bryan will look at the FAQ and establish who the last author was. Doug will work with the author to update this.
4/ XLIFF 2.0 - Life after approval of XLIFF 1.2
A. Brainstorm the future of XLIFF 2.0
B. Create a concrete list of goals
"Simplify, Extend and Clarify" (Magnus Martikainen, 09November2006)
C. Review highlights of the F2F Strategic Planning Session:
i Reference implementations or toolkit(s) similar to DITA
ii XLIFF validator tool to be included in a toolkit
iii Submitting to ISO once XLIFF becomes an OASIS standard
iv Additional Representation Guides (DITA,.NET / Win32, Docbook)
v XLIFF Round Trip tool could be modified to support:
(DITA/ITS -> XLIFF -> Translated DITA model)
vi Subsetting / restricting XSD as proposed by Christian
vii Version control Metadata - need to track revision information
viii Ability to store Multilingual Content.
ix Create a bare-bones XLIFF core,
then provide extension modules that support additional features.
x "Simplify, Extend and Clarify"
(Core XLIFF functionality would be in primary XLIFF namespace; would be very simple to implement.)
(Extensions would provide support for more complicated features like, Segmentation, Pre-Translation, Generic Inline Markup, etc.)
Bryan suggested that it might be useful to have a subcommittee to look at this. Magnus suggested that this was more the work of the main committee.
xi Schema Catalogues; host a namespace Catalogues
for XLIFF 3rd party custom / extension namespaces.
xii More work on inline-elements:
(Separate inline elements from other elements? Maybe as an extension? Stronger rules for when to use each inline tag?)
xiii Define a multi-lingual "Localisation Kit" format, which may include:
(XLIFF content + original source material+ all target language files+ skeleton files + reference files + some sort of manifest document describing/defining the payload.
xiv Using XLIFF as a primary content authoring container.
(Author stores contend directly to XLIFF instead of another proprietary format.)
Rodolfo gave the opinion that this is not something which we should do. This should be left to DITA and other formats. This was a suggestion which came from Christian who was not here. Tony said there were some good reasons for doing it both ways and that this was intended for software strings. Rodolfo suggested that could make more sense.
xv Terminology Markup
(Has been suggested by Kara Warburton of IBM some time ago to support terminology markup such as translate (yes/no), subject-categorization, type, etc.)
Magnus suggested that it would be a good idea to have people taking responsibility for some of these. We would like to use a WIKI to work on this.
Rodolfo agreed to work on the XLIFF validator (i)
Bryan agreed to work on the XLIFF round trip tool (v) There may be some issues with Licenses because of incompatibility between our license and the DITA (GPL) license. Tony mentioned that there are major problems with the GPL license and IBM are saying that this could cause major problems with UNIX and are very concerned about. Once something has a GPL license it is impossible to get out of it.
It is important that we start work on these items soon. Anyone who would like to offer to lead one of these contact Bryan.
5/ Reports from liaisons involved with other standards groups:
A. W3C i18n
B. Oscar – Rodolofo announced that SRX has been approved as a standard. GMX-V - Rololfo mentioned that this has been approved as a standard. This is for word counts and makes use of XLIFF.
C. Trans-WS – Peter mentioned that this committee was having difficulty getting over the finishing line for their committee specification.
D. LRC – Peter mentioned that Ignite were having a mini conference on Friday February 2nd where they are showing the work they have done on this project.
E: OASIS DITA Translation Subcommittee – Rodolfo mentioned that this committee has done most of its work and if there is a need to do more work they will reconvene.
6/ Any Other Business
7/ next meeting – February 20th 2007. at 11 AM ET/ 4 PM GMT
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 9 of 37 (24%)
Voting Members: 9 of 13 (69%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 9 of 25 (36%)
Voting Companies: 9 of 12 (75%)
|