Identification of documents across languages

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Gukk_Devel Gukk_Devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Identification of documents across languages

Hi,

I got a question on the Identification of documents across languages.

<example:>

in the future there will be a document Version 1 for Writer LibO in English
and a document  Version 1 for Writer LibO in German also in French  and
all other languages.
also a Document Version 2 for Writer LibO in English and so on

but also a document for an extension from the French community Version1
in French and when translated,
a document about that extension in English and all other Languages. This
also with other documents

But they don't have any connection between them.

If in a German document is written: "Dieses Kapitel basiert auf dem
"Chapter 1 of /Getting Started LibreOffice" welches auf dem "/Chapter 1
of /Getting Started LibreOffice with OpenOffice.org/." basiert."


No one can see which version Chapter 1 of Getting Started ... is meant.
(Version 1 or Version 2)

<end-example:>

For an end user this doesn't  matter but for translations it should.


Therefore a system should be established where the original document
gets a unique number e.g. "LO1234567" appended by the corresponding LANG
(en, de, fr)

And translated documents get the same number with their corresponding LANG.

With this conjunction/connection/association this can be followed also
by a new member.

Are my thoughts traceable/comprehensibly?

Or is it absurd/counterproductive/meaningless/unimportant/non-relevant?
 
Karl-Heinz

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

Hi, :-)

This idea makes sense to me. Moreover, if we adopt a system of version
numbering on each document's cover page, taken from version
information in the file meta data, we could perhaps do away with the
need to embed version information in the actual file naming.

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

JDługosz JDługosz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

In reply to this post by Gukk_Devel
> if we adopt a system of version
numbering on each document's cover page, taken from version
information in the file meta data, we could perhaps do away with the
need to embed version information in the actual file naming.

I use a document ID number even in the letters I write for mailing!  I see that right now only the Title field is being used.  The suggested names for "custom properties" includes "Document Number", but I no longer see "Version" (or was it "Revision"?) on the list.  Is that supported more directly somewhere else in the Properties?  I see an automatic "Revision number" in General.  But for distributed control, an auto-incremented-upon-saving revision number won't work.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

Hi, :-)

So why don't we get some ideas going about how to do this... I'm off
for a think, posting back soon...

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

JDługosz JDługosz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

In reply to this post by Gukk_Devel
> So why don't we get some ideas going about how to do this

I would suggest populating "Document number" with a short ID based on book/chapter, and for "other" documents simply being unique.  This part of the ID should not change with translation, so we don't have to worry about it being updated when the file is replicated for translation.  If the existing file name prefixes fit the bill, we would have "0202WG3".

The version would be taken from the Alfresco version, and is not recorded in the file on every edit.

We can put the target language in meta-data too if we want it to show up in tool tips or whatever.  Language is a suggested value for User Properties; use the same two-letter code as we are in the Alfresco directories.

So, a translation might include an introductory passage that states, "Based on document 0202WG3-en-2.2, with some unique material ported directly from the zh-ch-2.7 that has not found its way back to en yet.  Mostly synchronized with en-2.9."

As you see, several documents might be referred to with ad-hoc classifications as to what the relationship is, so I would not include such details in meta-data.  However, the author might set up alert dependencies with the various other versions to be apprised when they are updated -- that would trigger on a new version existing, so would not be based on the version number, just the Alfresco document path.

This and other translation notes could be placed in a standard location with a unique paragraph style.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Gukk_Devel Gukk_Devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

Am 11.02.2011 11:08, schrieb John M. Dlugosz:

>> So why don't we get some ideas going about how to do this
> I would suggest populating "Document number" with a short ID based on book/chapter, and for "other" documents simply being unique.  This part of the ID should not change with translation, so we don't have to worry about it being updated when the file is replicated for translation.  If the existing file name prefixes fit the bill, we would have "0202WG3".
>
> The version would be taken from the Alfresco version, and is not recorded in the file on every edit.
>
> We can put the target language in meta-data too if we want it to show up in tool tips or whatever.  Language is a suggested value for User Properties; use the same two-letter code as we are in the Alfresco directories.
>
> So, a translation might include an introductory passage that states, "Based on document 0202WG3-en-2.2, with some unique material ported directly from the zh-ch-2.7 that has not found its way back to en yet.  Mostly synchronized with en-2.9."
>
> As you see, several documents might be referred to with ad-hoc classifications as to what the relationship is, so I would not include such details in meta-data.  However, the author might set up alert dependencies with the various other versions to be apprised when they are updated -- that would trigger on a new version existing, so would not be based on the version number, just the Alfresco document path.
>
> This and other translation notes could be placed in a standard location with a unique paragraph style.
>
Please remember there are documents outside of alfresco and they will
be. from a user on his own homepage, translated only by a community
member. also we have ODFAuthors the other documentation platform.

therefore I suggest a countinous numbering and a Wikipage as index.
preferrably sortable; number and title and language

Karl-Heinz

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

Hi Karl-Heinz, :-)

My 2 cents would be that it's better better to keep the meta data
inside the ODF documents. We'll be able to read a document's meta data
with Alfresco.

So, with the Alfresco share site, we'll be able to automatically
maintain an index that will be publicly consultable, saving time and
work, and avoiding mistakes.

Surely that's more rational? What would be the advantage of manually
maintaining a wiki page?

AFAIK, all the people currently actively working on English
LibreOffice documentation *seem* to be taking up Alfresco.

There would actually be advantages for other NL teams to do so as
well, if they want to take a translation-based approach to producing
documentation for their community - or even if they want to produce
their own content.

But all the NL communities are obviously free to make their own
choices - as the English NL community is, too.

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

JDługosz JDługosz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

In reply to this post by Gukk_Devel
Putting the revision number in the document has problems.  Notice that git, for example, doesn't have classic file revision numbers like SVN.  Simple numbers need to be dished out by an authority, rather than just incremented each time the file is saved.  After all, different people can each save the file.  The versioning, whatever it is, needs to be tied with the versioning =system=.  In the case of files stored on Alfresco, that's Alfresco's version number.  When you refer to some revision, it's not just "some copy I got from so-and-so via some passing around", but some place you can go and get a "committed" version from.  Furthermore, you have some weak ordering so you know if an available version is newer than the one you were using before.

For files that are not gotten from Alfresco, wherever you got them from needs some versioning system.

So, I stick by my analysis, but amend it to decorate the version number with the authority that produced that number.  As a community, we can have a (very small) registration of codes and their repositories, along with a description of each.  
So, you might refer to document 0202WG3-[AF]2.2-en, where [AF] refers to this group's existing Alfresco system, and the component could be omitted when it is not necessary.  0202WG3-2.2 omits two components, for example.

We also need to ensure that document numbers are assigned uniquely.  A systematic approach with wildcards can be used to register a whole book of many files, and this list is kept to ensure that new ids are assigned uniquely when someone wants one, but they are still short and reasonably mnemonic.
Perhaps we want to flip it around from the current file names so the wild part is always a suffix:  WG3* is "Writer's Guide for major version 3" with the per-book note on how chapter numbers are filled to two digits and suffixed to that.

So we need, perhaps on a Wiki page, two lists:  The unique id base part assignment, and the versioning authority information.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

Hi, :-)

My *personal* view of the basic principles of a versioning system for
English documentation would be this:

1) The versioning system should be totally independent of Alfresco's
versioning, and should be maintained manually by the English docs
team, and based on the status of a document as considerered by the
working contributors. That way, the system is properly portable to any
working environment.

2) The reference version of English documentation should be stored on
the English docs team's working environment - Alfresco, or whatever
other system the team chooses to use.

3) The document's meta data seems to me to be the logical place to
store the versioning info. You get genuine portability and are not
tied to any particular working environment. Plus, you're not tied to
carefully preserving OS file names in order to preserve the versioning
information.

4) The principles and rules of the versioning system should be
explained on the wiki, but the English docs team should non be tied to
maintaining records of versions on the wiki. All that could be done in
an automated manner via Alfresco, and made publically consultable on a
login-free web page.

5) We should try and devise a system that is as easy to understand and
apply as possible - especially by people without a degree in
mathematics. :-D

That would be my own 2 cents. What do people think about all that?

And what specific information items would we need to track?

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Hal Parker Hal Parker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nelson <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hi, :-)
>
> My *personal* view of the basic principles of a versioning system for
> English documentation would be this:
>
> 1) The versioning system should be totally independent of Alfresco's
> versioning, and should be maintained manually by the English docs
> team, and based on the status of a document as considerered by the
> working contributors. That way, the system is properly portable to any
> working environment.
>
> 2) The reference version of English documentation should be stored on
> the English docs team's working environment - Alfresco, or whatever
> other system the team chooses to use.
>
> 3) The document's meta data seems to me to be the logical place to
> store the versioning info. You get genuine portability and are not
> tied to any particular working environment. Plus, you're not tied to
> carefully preserving OS file names in order to preserve the versioning
> information.
>
> 4) The principles and rules of the versioning system should be
> explained on the wiki, but the English docs team should non be tied to
> maintaining records of versions on the wiki. All that could be done in
> an automated manner via Alfresco, and made publically consultable on a
> login-free web page.
>
> 5) We should try and devise a system that is as easy to understand and
> apply as possible - especially by people without a degree in
> mathematics. :-D
>
> That would be my own 2 cents. What do people think about all that?
>
> And what specific information items would we need to track?
>
>
David,

I agree with what you have said here, especialy the "keep it simple"
principle in item 5.

Some items I think need to be in the meta data:

* LibO version for which the doc has been verified
* Publication date of the doc
* Version number of the doc
* List of embedded sections of common material? I'm not sure how that might
work.

I'll probably think of other items later.

I am writing a separate note on the topic of embedded sections of common
material, in response to Jean Weber's earlier note.

Hal

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Gukk_Devel Gukk_Devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

Hi Hal, David, John, all,

Am 11.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Hal Parker:
>
> I agree with what you have said here, especialy the "keep it simple"
> principle in item 5.
>
> Some items I think need to be in the meta data:
>
> * LibO version for which the doc has been verified
> * Publication date of the doc
> * Version number of the doc

unique Identifier for this document

language of the document


> * List of embedded sections of common material? I'm not sure how that might
> work.
>

what do you mean with embedded sections of common material?


Karl-Heinz

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

JDługosz JDługosz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

In reply to this post by Gukk_Devel
> 1) The versioning system should be totally independent of Alfresco's
versioning,

So, every time I post an updated version of a document such that it can be freely read and used by others (e.g. update it on Alfresco), I must also manually obtain a new portable version number, put that in the file when saving it, and associate where that version can be found?  No thanks.  

There is no need for yet another versioning system.  We just require that versions exist and are weakly ordered.  That already is present.  We do not need the same mechanism and versioning authority to be used everywhere.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

Hi, :-)

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 20:58, John M. Dlugosz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 1) The versioning system should be totally independent of Alfresco's
> versioning,
>
> So, every time I post an updated version of a document such that it can be freely read and used by others (e.g. update it on Alfresco), I must also manually obtain a new portable version number, put that in the file when saving it, and associate where that version can be found?  No thanks.
>
> There is no need for yet another versioning system.  We just require that versions exist and are weakly ordered.  That already is present.  We do not need the same mechanism and versioning authority to be used everywhere.

I don't think we need to update the "LibreOffice document version
system" each time we work on a document. While a document is being
worked on by the team members, before reaching publication state, we
can use the Alfresco versioning system for keeping track of progress.

We'd only need to manually update the LibO version system each time
the English docs team spits out a new version of a document for the
world to use.

However, IMHO, we really do need to have a versioning system that is
*totally independent* of the platform used to work on it.

And, for me, the document's meta data was designed for this kind of
purpose. By taking away the version info from the file name, you can
have nice, localized, human-readable file names while still being able
to keep track of versions and other worthwhile information.

Basically, what we're trying to cater to here is the project policy of
freedom of choice of working tools. That's why we don't really want to
have a versioning system tied to *one* single platform.

3 cents (higher weekend rate)

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

JDługosz JDługosz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

In reply to this post by Gukk_Devel
So the translators are required to only take the "published" final version?  I thought they would grab changes at any time and incorporate them, as they felt like it.

Certainly the "released" version number would be in meta-data.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Volker Heggemann-2 Volker Heggemann-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

In reply to this post by davidnelson
Hello members,

this post causes me to some comments ...
As a people that does and want do any more translations from english
to german i can say the following:

Am 12.02.2011 14:56, schrieb David Nelson:
> Hi, :-)
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 20:58, John M.
> Dlugosz<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> 1) The versioning system should be totally independent of
>>> Alfresco's
>> versioning,
+1
I don't use Alfresco so what should i do with its versioning?

[...]
> I don't think we need to update the "LibreOffice document
> version system" each time we work on a document.
I agree to that.
> While a document is being worked on by the team members, before
> reaching publication state, we can use the Alfresco versioning
> system for keeping track of progress.
> We'd only need to manually update the LibO version system each
> time the English docs team spits out a new version of a document
>  for the world to use.
+1
The way for me is: I took a (original) english Document name e.g.
"best document ever" for LibreOffice 3.3
Then i translate it and of course i translate the title.
In the document i wrote: Based on "best document ever"

What happend, when someone add some more capters to the original
english file? Or some significantly text changes?

How could a reviewer find the basis text to compare it with my
translation?

> However, IMHO, we really do need to have a versioning system that
> is *totally independent* of the platform used to work on it.
+1

> And, for me, the document's meta data was designed for this kind
>  of purpose. By taking away the version info from the file name,
>  you can have nice, localized, human-readable file names while
> still being able to keep track of versions and other worthwhile
> information.
>
> Basically, what we're trying to cater to here is the project
> policy of freedom of choice of working tools. That's why we don't
> really want to have a versioning system tied to *one* single
> platform.
>
so, what about using the meta data "custom propertys" there we can
define a text row for the document version.
simple and i guess it works.

greetings
volker

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Jean Weber Jean Weber
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Identification of documents across languages

In reply to this post by Gukk_Devel
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 12:36 +0100, Karl-Heinz Gödderz wrote:

> Hi Hal, David, John, all,
>
> Am 11.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Hal Parker:
> >
> > I agree with what you have said here, especialy the "keep it simple"
> > principle in item 5.
> >
> > Some items I think need to be in the meta data:
> >
> > * LibO version for which the doc has been verified
> > * Publication date of the doc
> > * Version number of the doc
>
> unique Identifier for this document
>
> language of the document
>
>
> > * List of embedded sections of common material? I'm not sure how that might
> > work.
> >
>
> what do you mean with embedded sections of common material?


We have been talking about putting some material, which is used in
several books, into separate files and linking them into the working
copies of chapters. This way, the information is maintained in only one
place. When the chapters are published, the linked files would be
embedded.

Examples of common material: the PDF creation, LibO options, managing
templates.

--Jean



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***