Description:
Please get the dial in information from our private Action Item here:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3663
==========
Agenda:
I. Approved by call for consensus - meeting minutes for 2-May, 2017
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201705/msg00045.html
II. As specified earlier, let's focus on the end game plan.
III. SOU readiness
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201702/msg00215.html
IV. Sub Committee Report (0:45 - 0:55)
V. Current and New Business (0:55 -
==========
Minutes:
XLIFF TC 2017-05-16
Present: David Filip, Lucia, Soroush, Tom Comerford, Yves, Phil (minutes), Bryan, Regrets: Felix.
We did not succeed in launching the 4th PR last time, but it's better so, as wehad uncevered some important issues that would have sent us for 5th.
Also some good news: XLIFF TC has been nominated (again) for OASIS 2017 Open Standards Cup.
Agenda Items
Reopepened issue 8: mtc:matchQuality cannot be interpreted as ITS MT confidence by ITS processors
YS: Usability is complicated but I don't have a counter proposal.
DF: Three are really only options:
- Resolve through annotators ref,
- Express the rating using the W3C namespace and keep matchQuality for MT Confidence
- W3C namespace for both.
YS: no preference between 2 or 3.
DF: I think option 3 is the cleanest but it goes against maximum interoperability with XLIFF agents. Difficult to identify a clear way to proceed. The advantage of 2 is that it has been done so in the 2013 mapping.
YS: Can implement either way. We should wait a day to get an opinion from Felix. AI: YS to check with Felix.
Issue 55: xml:lang related validation issues
DF: seems an omission on source to me. It is a bug fix.
YS: Yes, I think it's missing.
DF: I think Lynx catches this as an error.
YS: Yes, this is how it was implemented
BS: I concur with Yves.
SS: Me too.
DF: I will implement in prose, SS in sch. Concensus to fix bug 55.
Issue 52: Clarification needed for annotatorsRef
DF: sch considers any sequence of whitespace as the separator.
YS: We implement ASCII space but we would not object to the wider whitespace interpretation
YS: Schematron allows space on the right side of the vertical bar. This is a problem. This introduces an empty value.
DF: We can solve under the same issue. Right-hand side should be a Uri.
SS: This is clear.
DF: Resolution to fix the right-hand side of the pipe and stick to whitespace interpretation for the value separator. OK, consensus on this.
Issue 53: remaining inline comment to resolve [ITS Module]
DF: As an editor YS could look into resolution. Delegate to editorial team for resolution.
AI Yves, to porpose better wording.
Issue 56: Validation artifacts limitations
DF: Could be a big editorial task if we should address each case separately.
YS: No opinion.
DF: Editorial issue. Proposal to go with summary comment approach in appendix.
AI SS to provide list of issues that cannot be checked by sch.
Consensus to address with one summary comment in appendix.
Issue 48: existence of "firstNo" at the start of non-reorderable sequences not checked
SS: Just finished canReorder issue. Will move onto the others. I have no false positives left. I need to check the repeated pattern on target and create a new rule.
Various, no discussion required
DF: Reopening 10 and 11 from 2nd review.
SS: Now fixed but need to commit to SVN.
DF: Can I have summary approval of resolutions to all open issues except 8? No dissent. All material and editorial issues except for 8 have consensus. We have clear position on all open issues. We should be able to produce 4th public review by Friday. We'll do the balotting electronically.
BS: Agree.
DF: I will post the proposal language in mail.
YS: We discussed converting and xslt for the Schematron rules. Will we do this?
SS: As soon as I finalize the existing issues.
DF: Worth doing but don't make it another normative artifact. Release it informally, as part of the test suite on SVN. Easier to maintain if informal.
YS: OK, fine to be on SVN.
SOU Questionnaire may need more review after changes agreed today. We will address that via email.
DF: Call for papers for Santa Clara gone out on EasyChair. Link on Localization World site. Call for Papers
==========
Attendance:
Meeting Statistics |
Quorum rule |
51% of voting members
|
Achieved quorum |
yes |
Individual Attendance |
Contributing Members: 7 of 34 (20%) Voting Members: 7 of 8 (87%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
Company Attendance |
Contributing Companies: 6 of 16 (37%) Voting Companies: 6 of 6 (100%)
|