XLIFF TC Meeting

When:  Nov 3, 2015 from 11:00 to 12:00 (ET)
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 Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
  A. Roll call

  B. Approve meeting minutes, 06 October 2015
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201510/msg00004.html
     
  C. Revise scheduled for XLIFF 2.1    
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201504/msg00009.html
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201504/msg00014.html

  D. Requesting progress of ISO submision of XLIFF 2.0
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00002.html

 

II XLIFF 2.1 (0:10 - 0:45)

* indicates new topic, not yet discussed

  A. Discuss whether can be allowed at all extension points (Ryan)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00013.html
  B. Inline attributes and canCopy (Ryan)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00015.html
  D. Typo in example (4.3.1.10 dataRefEnd) (Yves)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00022.html
  E. Add N Constraint to the core order attribute
     DF will make a CFD for this on mailing list. This has been now sufficiently discussed. [pending AI for dF]
  F. Template/Model for TBX Mapping with XLIFF v2.0 and Higher Version 1.0 (DavidF)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201411/msg00091.html [pending AI for Fredrik]
  G. ITS storage size restriction
     Fredrik to propose slr profile for ITS storage size data category [pending AI for dF]
  H. Mistakes in the spec (Soroush)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201502/msg00009.html
  I. NVDL for the core is updated (Soroush)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201503/msg00009.html
  J. * NVDL validation for XLIFF 2.0 (Soroush)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00002.html
  K. * Comment on 2.1 draft (Yves)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00023.html
  L. * CanReorder Validation error (Ryan)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00031.html

  M. * ITS text analytics (David)

  N. Internationalization and beyond related metadata for JSON - XLIFF perspective? (Felix)
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201510/msg00006.html

 

III Sub Committee Report (0:45 - 0:55)

IV  Current and New Business (0:55 -



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

Date: 03 NOV 2015

 

Attendance:

David Filip, Lucia, Soroush, Ingo, Fredrik, Felix, Tom, Patrik

Regrets: Uwe, Bryan, Yves

Quorum achieved with 7 out of 12 voters

I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)

 

dF: Approve meeting minutes, 06 October 2015

     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201510/msg00004.html

 

T: I second.

dF: I hear no dissent

dF: Minutes approved.

dF: We’re late on publishing 2.1. We will regroup and replan in January. (Item C). There is progress but not enough to publish in this year. With regards to point D (ISO submission); I met Alan Melby, an ISO insider, in the LocWorld conference and he said there is a good progress on reviewing 2.0 in ISO TC37. The standard fall in the expertise of two subcommittees and they are looking how both of them can take part in the review. The other committee that is interested in the project is SC 3.

 

P: Peter just submited an update a minute ago.

dF: So we have an update from Peter ( https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201511/msg00002.html). This confirms that the leading committee is SC5. We approved it more than year ago, so this now happened. We’re now eligible of fast tracking mechanism. Good progress on the ISO front. 

 

II XLIFF 2.1 (0:10 - 0:45)

 

dF: There is a new item (N), there was a discussion between Felix and Fredrik on internationalization of JSON. Do you want to summarize that?

Felix: It was initiated from talks in W3C; adding metadata to JSON strings, for instance directionality metadata we could use control characters. Maybe standardization would be overhead, basically segmentation unto the unit level. Fredrik sent an example what could look like using character offsets pointing into JSON string which is static and adding the metadata to that. There are problems especially with directionality involved; so when you want to render a string and actually when doing the segmentation could cause difficulties for the rendering engine,which would have to resolve all these references. We have this conversation going on.

dF: Actually this topic is a good one for the new XLIFF OMOS TC , first meeting of which is 08 DEC, and Felix is a co-proposer of that TC. So it’s really an XLIFF OMOS item. I have question for Felix; is JSON considered a mark-up language by W3C?

Felix: No.

dF: You said that use of control characters is not recommended for mark-up languages, so if JSON is not one, nothing prevents use of them, right?

Fr: Yes and no; you still have the core problem as in mark-up languages if they don’t explicitly support directionality. You need to know the base direction for something is outside of text you displace. You need to start with some initial direction. That’s something characters could solve, but it would be very tricky and should be avoided. The second one is around problems of viewing and editing etc. text with directional control inside. Since JSON is used a lot on the web, e.g. web debugger or similar, with lot of unicode directional controls inside, this approach isn’t optimal.

dF: I think that JSON needs some hook into the bidirectional algorithm for determining the directionality from the higher protocol, is it what you’re saying?

Fr: Yes, so for me if I had smh, I’d break. If I had number of paragraphs, I would simply add the base direction attribute in the text.

dF: What is the definition of a mark-up language, what languages are actually in scope of the Unicode W3C note on use of Unicode, Felix?

Feliz: Just to note what Fr just said, for language info, not directionality, for the JSON-LD that’s already possible to have on the side of JSON string the language info, so that approach for directionality might solve this issue for mark-up languages. There’s no intensional definition but extensional one. At that time JSON was just not prominent enough to be taken into account. 

dF: Is there any work ongoing for a new revision to include it?

F: No. 

dF: Thanks! Lets have a look at items A to M and if anyone wants to talk about one of them.

F: Phil is not here, so should we talk about the text analytics issue on the list?

dF: It’s unfortunate that we cannot have all 3 of us at the same time. Well, it seems to me that Phil is looking into solution in 2.0, as an OASIS standard, so any solution needs to be extension. The reason why I reopened the issue after it was addressed between you and Phil was that 2.1 main feature is support for ITS metadata categories. In the current working draft of 2.1, text analytics is one of the elaborated categories with a solid draft. The point is, when ITS becomes a module, there would be need to use the ITS namespace. Phil said he would get back to you and his developers. Felix, u wrote a piece on the wiki, explaining what needs to be done to replace the namespace with ITS module.

F: Yes, that’s what we both are not sure about. We can start the talk on the mailing list.

dF: We need to have this URL in the minutes, we can follow up on the list. http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_2.0_Mapping#Re-writing_the_ITS_namespace

dF: OK, I’ll go back to the agenda. Do we have any progress on Schematron and NVDL validation? Did anyone try to work with that? Felix, did you just review them manually or run some tests too?

F: Some tests, it was few months ago. Sample testing. Soroush and I had few calls on that and ITS files too, we decided that it would be the best if we had a call for three of us (dF,Felix and S). We can have it in the coming weeks to move these items forward.

dF: We will agree on a time after this meeting.

dF: So, are there points in this section that someone wants to cover? We don’t have Yves for other subjects on the agenda. So let’s jump to the subcommittee report.

 

III Sub Committee Report (0:45 - 0:55)

dF: Lucia, would you tell us about the progress of the new questionaire?

L: Hi! I asked the members of the subcommittee to review the draft I created, no feedback except for dF. The next step is to put it on the online system and ask people to test it before publishing.

Fr: I don’t know if it was on the main list?

L: No, just internal for the subcommittee.

Fr: I’d say send it to the main one and ask people to contribute or get more responders.

L: I will do that within this week. 

dF: I think it’s OK if anyone from the main TC wants testing access to the survey. From my point of view it looked solid enough to go for implementation. There should be maybe reformulation changes, but not major design changes. You can distribute it to the main TC as Fr suggested. You can do it in parallel; post design document and start working on implementation and then post the test link for everyone.

L: OK, perfect.

dF: We’ve already covered the ISO topic with Peter’s email. We have the 3rd and 4th liaison topics; One is the formation of the XLIFF OMOS TC. We currently have Trinity / ADAPT, and SDL International as co-proposers. Patrik and Lucian on behalf of SDL. I’m in touch with a number of other people to become co-proposers. I was wondering if any of you plan to join the TC, as co-proposer or early joiner (by Dec 1). To become a co-proposer, the support needs to be stated by 5th NOV. As an individual or associate member it’s enough to send the support by yourself.. Support statements to be sent to david.filip@adaptcentre.ie and the publicly archived list oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org.

The TC page  to https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff-omos/ will be public after the first meeting on 08th Dec. It is not open for members to join until 06th NOV. The deadline to join as voting members is 1st DEC. One important thing for the co-proposers; even if you’re one, you’ll still need to manually join the TC on the above page and it will still require Primary Reps approval, unless you're an individual or associate. Also the standard way of joining is open from 06th NOV. It means that it must be approved by the primary representative or the company. So whoever joins by 01 DEC will have their voting rights in the first meeting on 08th DEC. 

dF: Is there any question with regards to formation of the new TC? 

Fr: What happened to moving TMX into that TC?

dF: I didn’t hear about any progress , but also any objections either. The method that was agreed between ETSI Secretariat and OASIS admin was that it’ll be first transferred to XLIFF TC and then XLIFF TC will dump it on the sister committee. Because XLIFF TC Charter cannot be expanded to work on TMX, while the XLIFF OMOS Charter was specifically designed to have TMX in scope. We have no updates by now. 

ACTION ITEM for dF: Contact Jamie for the progress of this transfer.

dF: Fredrik, do you or Lionbridge consider joining the OMOS TC?

Fr: I am thinking about joining but also about the time I’ll need to spend. It’s very possible.

dF: OK. So it’s not about expecting an issue with approval at the organization? Rather about your own dance card?

Fr: Yes, if I join, I commit myself to work and if don’t see I have a commitment from the organization to spend that time, I don’t see much point in joining for meetings from time to time.

dF: Thanks! Any other questions WRT the sister committee? So We’ll move to the last two items (I remembered one more); We’ll need to extend the charter of the P&L subcommittee. Lucia, could you please check when the mandate ends? Is it the end of 2015? I will talk about the Symposium meanwhile.

L: Sure. 

dF: So, there was some discussion in the subcommittee about going to Asia and we believe it’s important to escape the confines of North America and Europe and bring the discussion to Asia, Africa and so on. We started some action items, e.g. I talked in Shanghai in LocWorld on XLIFF 2. Uwe co-presented over Skype. We had quite a good response in Shanghai, but in general the issue seems to be that the European and North American members wouldn’t be ale to travel to an Asian conference. We need to do more work on getting more audience and getting confirmations and engage with interested parties in Japan and China to bring the Symposium to China or Japan in one of the upcoming years. We absolutely wouldn’t be able to do that on our own, so the plan is to go with a LocWorld event. The next Asian LocWorld is in Tokyo, but we decided not to go just yet, because the European LocWorld will be in Dublin. It’s quite easy to reach for all of us and lot of interested people are in the area and we believe the Symposium will be successful in Dublin in June 2016. We started first steps for organizing this event, so probably the most important thing to record now is the June date, so that everyone can block it. It will be most probably in the week from June 6, the Symposium would take place June 7-8. Will be confirmed shortly.

Fr: P&L SC is chartered till 31 DEC 2015 (https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/ballot.php?id=2719 ).

dF: Thanks for confirming. So we will need to prepare in the subcommittee extension of the charter for the next committee meeting. We’ll prepare another ballot to extend the mandate..

dF:The call for LocWorld in Dublin will appear online on 10th NOV. The dates are sometime in the second week of June. We would go for a F2F meeting on 6th JUN, and two-day Symposium on 7-8 and the main conference on 9-10th. This year the topics of both committees will be covered. OK, I think that’s it. Any new business for the next time (17th NOV) or breaking news right now?

Patrik: SDL will finalize developing XLIFF 2 core support by the end of November, not sure if it's a breaking news..

dF: It is we should discuss timing and coverage in the P&L SC meeting that will now follow on the same channel for those who stay on for it..  

dF: So neow the TC meeting is adjourned.



==========
Attendance:
Meeting Statistics
Quorum rule 51% of voting members
Achieved quorum yes
Individual Attendance Contributing Members: 8 of 35 (22%)
Voting Members: 7 of 12 (58%) (used for quorum calculation)
Company Attendance Contributing Companies: 6 of 16 (37%)
Voting Companies: 6 of 10 (60%)