History: Alain's comments on translation tracking architecture, 2008-02-05
Preview of version: 5
These are Alain's comments on an architecture document written by LPH. The document describes how the system will track the relationships between changes made and translated in different language versions of a same page.
The architecture is attached at the bottom of this page.
I like the fact that the framework is highly flexible. In particular, it is completely agnostic about whether or not we have a master language or pivot language or none. This will give us flexibility to experiment with different types of workflows.
I also like the way you address the need for preserving the complete translation relationship record, while allowing fast display (using translation bit flags).
On page 2, the document says:
The question I have is what does "exposed" mean in this context? It seems to me that you are assuming that as soon as the user enters a transaction to transate a change from say, En to Fr, and he clicks on save, then the Fr page is deemd to have been exposed to the En change.
But that assumes that translators will always translate a whole change in one go and will not want to do an interim save. This may not be the case when translating long changes.
I wrote a bit about this on this page Alain's test and feedback, 2008-02-05... look at Issue #9.
Often there are some things that are too cultural and are not appropriate in other languages. In cases like this, translators must have the option so simply not integrate a particular change in their language version.
I don't think there are limitations in the architecture w.r.t. that, but just wanted to raise the issue.
The architecture is attached at the bottom of this page.
Very flexible framework
I like the fact that the framework is highly flexible. In particular, it is completely agnostic about whether or not we have a master language or pivot language or none. This will give us flexibility to experiment with different types of workflows.
I also like the way you address the need for preserving the complete translation relationship record, while allowing fast display (using translation bit flags).
User still needs to manually label synchronisation points
On page 2, the document says:
Trying to identify the point in time when two pages are synchronized would usually require human validation. Instead, this model keeps track of which unique modi cations the page has been exposed to. Pages that have been exposed to the same content are considered equivalent. Similarly, pages that have been exposed to more content can be considered superior.
The question I have is what does "exposed" mean in this context? It seems to me that you are assuming that as soon as the user enters a transaction to transate a change from say, En to Fr, and he clicks on save, then the Fr page is deemd to have been exposed to the En change.
But that assumes that translators will always translate a whole change in one go and will not want to do an interim save. This may not be the case when translating long changes.
I wrote a bit about this on this page Alain's test and feedback, 2008-02-05... look at Issue #9.
Can translates decide to not incorporate a particular change from a language
Often there are some things that are too cultural and are not appropriate in other languages. In cases like this, translators must have the option so simply not integrate a particular change in their language version.
I don't think there are limitations in the architecture w.r.t. that, but just wanted to raise the issue.
History
SideMenu
Latest Changes
No records to display ...more
Search
Log In
Upcoming Events
No records to display