[native-lang] Re: Integrating OOo Online Glossary Management to xy.openoffice.org

Sounds like a fine plan, whatever software is chosen.

If I could make one suggestion, based on our experience in the 
Esperanto project -- it's very useful for the translation co-ordinator 
to be able to see *who* did a particular translation or who made what 
change and when, and for some kind of "proof-read" flag to be set when 
a translation has been checked. If there were also some automatic 
system that insisted on a comment from any user who was changing an 
existing translation, that would be handy too, to encourage them to 
explain the rationale for their proposal.

Regards,


Tim


On 5 Apr 2005, at 16:52, [email protected] 
wrote:

>
> From: Aiet Kolkhi <[email protected]>
> Date: 4 April 2005 05:33:24 BST
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Integrating OOo Online Glossary Management to 
> xy.openoffice.org
> Reply-To: Aiet Kolkhi <[email protected]>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> discussing this with Louis Suarez-Potts, he recommended that I raise 
> an issue at dev@native-lang regarding this.
>
> As there are many NL projects who do not have another office suite 
> localized to the local language and do not have a working and 
> widespread glossary of terms, it is important that before starting the 
> actual l10n of the modules, they agree on the glossary that will be 
> used during l10n.
>
> OOo already did a very good job by preparing the glossary of basic 
> terms that are used in OOo and advising that all the l10n teams 
> localize the glossary first and move to the next stage and start 
> translating the actual modules later.
>
> The problem is that not every is familiar with glossary 
> creation/discussion and some l10n teams may not be experienced in 
> using the Translation Memory (TM) during to aid their collaboration.
>
> While the actual l10n of the modules is best and most effectively 
> achieved off-line, coming up with the best glossary is mostly only 
> available by having the local IT experts, linguists product users 
> participate in the glossary localization, voting and discussion. All 
> the people participating in the process (e.g. university professors) 
> may not have the ability to download the glossary of terms, translate 
> it and send to the coordinator, most of them will ave access to 
> Internet and the ability to log on a website, comment on existing 
> glossary translations, add his/her own suggestions etc.
>
> To achieve this, many tools have been created by various NL and l10n 
> projects/teams.
>
> Alberto Escudero-Pascual has mentioned KiPot, a tool that was 
> successfully used for Swahili NL project. Pootle and Webtionary are 
> other good examples.  In Georgian NL, we are also using a tool I 
> created for Georgian glossary creation/discussion that enables 
> registered members to approve trasnlations, suggest their versions, 
> comment on other suggestions etc.
>
> If we could just come up with one tool that would suit the needs of 
> most NL projects and somehow have this tool integrated to 
> xy.openoffice.org (as this is the best place to have all the NL and 
> l10n related resources hosted), this would make a very big difference 
> for languages with not so much population or with little l10n history.
>
> Upon the completion of the glossary work, the terms could easily be 
> converted to an acceptable format and fed to any l10n software 
> supporting TM. As a result, all the localizations would be able to 
> keep same glossary during the process, as well as use Computer Aided 
> Translation (CAT) to dramatically speed up the process.
>
> The opinions of other NL representatives could also be very useful.
>
> Best regards,
> Aiet Kolkhi
>