Collecting requirements to translation tools
Hi, I18n team One year ago, when the community was making the decision to use Transifex as the translation management tool, a table was made to compare several different tools: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqevw3Q-ErDUdFgzT3VNVXQxd095bFgzODRmajJDeVE&usp=drive_web#gid=0 Now since Transifex began to close its source code, we will do another round of tool selection to find the translation management tool for Openstack translation. We will start from requirements collection. Here I listed some. (Some are copied from the old table. The last three items are newly added. ) * Cross-project translation teams * Cross-project translation memory * Good in-browser translation interface * Good in-browser review interface * Easy import/export of translation files * Support for all common translation formats * Git/GitHub Integration * Hooks for CI infrastructure * Management workflows that fit OpenStack process * Self-hosted * Proven success with large projects * API to gather statistics about translators * Easily see the translating context, i.g. the paragraph or section that contains the translation string. * Cross-project glossary and dictionary Please feel free to present your requirements to the translation management tool. If you know some good candidate tools, please speak out too. Let's find out the most appropriate tool together, and build a "wonderful" working environment for ourselves. Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
Hi all, Just a suggestion from me. There is a new translation tool Zanata available. Its hosted at URL http://zanata.org. Can this tool be also considered for comparison? Regards, Parag. On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc@cn.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi, I18n team
One year ago, when the community was making the decision to use Transifex as the translation management tool, a table was made to compare several different tools:
Now since Transifex began to close its source code, we will do another round of tool selection to find the translation management tool for Openstack translation.
We will start from requirements collection. Here I listed some. (Some are copied from the old table. The last three items are newly added. )
* Cross-project translation teams * Cross-project translation memory * Good in-browser translation interface * Good in-browser review interface * Easy import/export of translation files * Support for all common translation formats * Git/GitHub Integration * Hooks for CI infrastructure * Management workflows that fit OpenStack process * Self-hosted * Proven success with large projects * API to gather statistics about translators * Easily see the translating context, i.g. the paragraph or section that contains the translation string. * Cross-project glossary and dictionary
Please feel free to present your requirements to the translation management tool. If you know some good candidate tools, please speak out too. Let's find out the most appropriate tool together, and build a "wonderful" working environment for ourselves.
Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
_______________________________________________ Openstack-i18n mailing list Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
Hello, On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Parag N(पराग़) <panemade@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, Just a suggestion from me. There is a new translation tool Zanata available. Its hosted at URL http://zanata.org. Can this tool be also considered for comparison?
Regards, Parag.
Thanks Parag, for highlighting the Zanata translation tool. @Daisy Please update the docs "Translation Management Comparison." for Zanata. Zanata is an open source project which uses java as a core technologies. It currently supports GNU Gettext-based PO files, Java Properties, XLIFF translation file formats. It's code is available on github[ https://github.com/zanata/zanata-server/ ]. Someone please add more features of the Zanata with respect to the Translation management Comparison Docs.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc@cn.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi, I18n team
One year ago, when the community was making the decision to use Transifex as the translation management tool, a table was made to compare several different tools:
Now since Transifex began to close its source code, we will do another round of tool selection to find the translation management tool for Openstack translation.
We will start from requirements collection. Here I listed some. (Some are copied from the old table. The last three items are newly added. )
* Cross-project translation teams * Cross-project translation memory * Good in-browser translation interface * Good in-browser review interface * Easy import/export of translation files * Support for all common translation formats * Git/GitHub Integration * Hooks for CI infrastructure * Management workflows that fit OpenStack process * Self-hosted * Proven success with large projects * API to gather statistics about translators * Easily see the translating context, i.g. the paragraph or section that contains the translation string. * Cross-project glossary and dictionary
Please feel free to present your requirements to the translation management tool. If you know some good candidate tools, please speak out too. Let's find out the most appropriate tool together, and build a "wonderful" working environment for ourselves.
Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
_______________________________________________ Openstack-i18n mailing list Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
_______________________________________________ Openstack-i18n mailing list Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
Thanks, Chandan Kumar
Thank you for the suggestion. I think it can. Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) Parag N(पराग़) <panemade@gmail.com> wrote on 2013/10/17 17:52:08:
Parag N(पराग़) <panemade@gmail.com> 2013/10/17 17:52
To
Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM@IBMCN,
cc
openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org
Subject
Re: [Openstack-i18n] Collecting requirements to translation tools
Hi all, Just a suggestion from me. There is a new translation tool Zanata available. Its hosted at URL http://zanata.org. Can this tool be also considered for comparison?
Regards, Parag.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc@cn.ibm.com> wrote: Hi, I18n team
One year ago, when the community was making the decision to use Transifex as the translation management tool, a table was made to compare several different tools: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqevw3Q- ErDUdFgzT3VNVXQxd095bFgzODRmajJDeVE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
Now since Transifex began to close its source code, we will do another round of tool selection to find the translation management tool for Openstack translation.
We will start from requirements collection. Here I listed some. (Some are copied from the old table. The last three items are newly added. )
* Cross-project translation teams * Cross-project translation memory * Good in-browser translation interface * Good in-browser review interface * Easy import/export of translation files * Support for all common translation formats * Git/GitHub Integration * Hooks for CI infrastructure * Management workflows that fit OpenStack process * Self-hosted * Proven success with large projects * API to gather statistics about translators * Easily see the translating context, i.g. the paragraph or section that contains the translation string. * Cross-project glossary and dictionary
Please feel free to present your requirements to the translation management tool. If you know some good candidate tools, please speak out too. Let's find out the most appropriate tool together, and build a "wonderful" working environment for ourselves.
Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
_______________________________________________ Openstack-i18n mailing list Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
I added 1 more requirement: Integration with OpenID. I don't want our translators to bother another user account for the translation. Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM@IBMCN wrote on 2013/10/17 17:12:23: > Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM@IBMCN > 2013/10/17 17:12 > > To > > openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org, > > cc > > Subject > > [Openstack-i18n] Collecting requirements to translation tools > > Hi, I18n team > > One year ago, when the community was making the decision to use > Transifex as the translation management tool, > a table was made to compare several different tools: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqevw3Q- > ErDUdFgzT3VNVXQxd095bFgzODRmajJDeVE&usp=drive_web#gid=0 > > Now since Transifex began to close its source code, we will do > another round of tool selection > to find the translation management tool for Openstack translation. > > We will start from requirements collection. Here I listed some. > (Some are copied from the old table. The last three items are newly added. ) > > * Cross-project translation teams > * Cross-project translation memory > * Good in-browser translation interface > * Good in-browser review interface > * Easy import/export of translation files > * Support for all common translation formats > * Git/GitHub Integration > * Hooks for CI infrastructure > * Management workflows that fit OpenStack process > * Self-hosted > * Proven success with large projects > * API to gather statistics about translators > * Easily see the translating context, i.g. the paragraph or section > that contains the translation string. > * Cross-project glossary and dictionary * Integration with OpenID > > Please feel free to present your requirements to the translation > management tool. > If you know some good candidate tools, please speak out too. > Let's find out the most appropriate tool together, and build a > "wonderful" working environment for ourselves. > > Regards > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)_______________________________________________ > Openstack-i18n mailing list > Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
On 10/17/2013 04:27 PM, Ying Chun Guo wrote:
I added 1 more requirement: Integration with OpenID. I don't want our translators to bother another user account for the translation.
I added another set of criteria for the evaluation. Mainly I'm focusing on finding out more about the solidity of the communities developing the software. The criteria I've added are simplified sets from research financed a few years ago by the European Commission to improve evaluation of open source software. Mostly these are qualitative data points. Code maturity (age of the code) Code stability (unstable, stable but old, stable and maintained) Available case studies (is anybody talking about how they use it?) Community management style (tech governance) Development Team size (ohloh and github stats) Training available? (for devs, users, none) Documentation (how wide is the documentation) QA process (existing/not, supported by tools) QA tools (range from not used - only gated commits) Code comments (poorly/well commented code, taken from Ohloh) Bugs/Pull request reactivity (poor, formalized but not reactive, reactive) Roadmap (range from not existing to detailed) Technical Support (commercial, community, both) and also added one technical requirement: Work offline Let's keep adding details to the spreadsheet, testing things and get to Hong Kong with good information to make a decision for the future of the i18n amazing team! /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
I don't know if my previous comments were useful, if they're not just let me know and I'll stop. :) Stefano Maffulli, 25/10/2013 00:48:
On 10/17/2013 04:27 PM, Ying Chun Guo wrote:
I added 1 more requirement: Integration with OpenID. I don't want our translators to bother another user account for the translation.
I added another set of criteria for the evaluation. Mainly I'm focusing on finding out more about the solidity of the communities developing the software. The criteria I've added are simplified sets from research financed a few years ago by the European Commission to improve evaluation of open source software. Mostly these are qualitative data points.
Interesting! I can't edit the gdoc, so let me fill some blanks for translatewiki.net here (in addition to what already reported): * "API to gather statistics about translators": do you mean API providing the stats or API to make your own? MediaWiki has extensive API, for ready stats see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate/Statistics_and_repor... * "Cross-project glossary and dictionary": yes, see the translation memory already mentioned. * "Easily see the translating context" is our pet peeve, see interface <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Translate_manual_-_Page_example_-_19._Documentation.png> * "Work offline": yes. <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Extension:Translate/Off-line_translation> * "Code maturity": it's 6+ years. <https://git.wikimedia.org/metrics/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FTranslate> * "Training available?": if you mean documentation and tutorials, plenty. If you mean in person, it's been done in the past. * "Roadmap": it's public. <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?component=Translate&product=MediaWiki%20extensions&product=Wikimedia&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&order=priority%2Cbug_severity%2Cbug_id%20DESC> Nemo
Hi Federico your comments are useful On 10/26/2013 07:50 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
I can't edit the gdoc, so let me fill some blanks for translatewiki.net here (in addition to what already reported):
I'll add these to the document. THere is one red flag raised though that would make translatewiki really unsuitable for us: how do translated strings get merged into the original git repository? IN other words, what's the typical workflow scenario when using TWiki? thanks, stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
On 10/26/2013 07:50 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
* "API to gather statistics about translators": do you mean API providing the stats or API to make your own? MediaWiki has extensive API, for ready stats see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate/Statistics_and_repor...
Our special need here is to gather stats for the individual translators. We need to be able to see not just the advancements of each language but also be able to recognize the individual translators. I can't see from the page you linked how easy it is to do this.
* "Cross-project glossary and dictionary": yes, see the translation memory already mentioned.
This is not clear. TM is one thing, glossary and dict are a different thing. Can you give us more details?
* "Easily see the translating context" is our pet peeve, see interface <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Translate_manual_-_Page_example_-_19._Documentation.png>
I don't understand that screenshot: where is the context exactly?
* "Roadmap": it's public. <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?component=Translate&product=MediaWiki%20extensions&product=Wikimedia&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&order=priority%2Cbug_severity%2Cbug_id%20DESC>
better than a kick in the teeth :) For roadmap I usually think of a high level description of a list of new features to add, the vision for the project/product in the next months. thanks, stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
Stefano Maffulli, 28/10/2013 17:48:
On 10/26/2013 07:50 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
* "API to gather statistics about translators": do you mean API providing the stats or API to make your own? MediaWiki has extensive API, for ready stats see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate/Statistics_and_repor...
Our special need here is to gather stats for the individual translators. We need to be able to see not just the advancements of each language but also be able to recognize the individual translators. I can't see from the page you linked how easy it is to do this.
There is a number of ways in Translate to "recognize" the individual translators, what do you mean? Listing all of them for credit reasons, spotting the biggest contributors, ordering by number of contributions in the last x days, ...?
* "Cross-project glossary and dictionary": yes, see the translation memory already mentioned.
This is not clear. TM is one thing, glossary and dict are a different thing. Can you give us more details?
Yes, sorry; Pootle, Transifex and the like tend to mix up glossary and translation memory features, so it wasn't clear to me what you were talking about. It's easier if you clarify what you need. :) Translate has an actual translation memory, which is cross-project and can serve as glossary/dictionary only as a byproduct as of now.
* "Easily see the translating context" is our pet peeve, see interface <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Translate_manual_-_Page_example_-_19._Documentation.png>
I don't understand that screenshot: where is the context exactly?
On the right, "Description of an image" is a hint about that message. You can have all you want in there.
* "Roadmap": it's public. <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?component=Translate&product=MediaWiki%20extensions&product=Wikimedia&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&order=priority%2Cbug_severity%2Cbug_id%20DESC>
better than a kick in the teeth :) For roadmap I usually think of a high level description of a list of new features to add, the vision for the project/product in the next months.
Translate is 6 years old, most of the functionality is already there. ;-) Nowadays, the biggest organised efforts (like the new interface I mentioned) come from WMF projects, which are documented on mediawiki.org and whose items can be found in mingle like e.g. <https://mingle.corp.wikimedia.org/projects/internationalization/cards/list?columns=Story+Points%2CEpic+Story%2CFeature%2CSprint%2CPriority%2CRelease%2CStatus&filters[]=[Type][is][Story]&filters[]=[Epic+Story][is][3622]&order=asc&page=1&sort=number&style=list&tab=All> or <https://mingle.corp.wikimedia.org/projects/internationalization/cards/list?columns=Story+Points%2CEpic+Story%2CFeature%2CSprint%2CPriority%2CRelease%2CStatus&filters%5B%5D=%5BType%5D%5Bis%5D%5BStory%5D&filters%5B%5D=%5BStatus%5D%5Bis+less+than%5D%5BAccepted%5D&filters%5B%5D=%5BEpic+Story%5D%5Bis%5D%5B374%5D&order=asc&page=1&sort=number&style=list&tab=All> Nemo
Hi, I believe the list is becoming a good share already. I would like to add * Good review interfaces and tracking status of comments. * We need a discussion for better translation. The string seems wrong, I am sure what it means,..... * When the translation is updated, we need to confirm it is reasonably improved. * We need to track what are addressed and what are not. * Bug/Issue tracking * Discussion or Bug which is not specific to each translation should be handled in broader scope. E.g., translation memory related, upstream bugs, ..... (I am not sure these are good examples..) Thanks, Akihiro On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc@cn.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi, I18n team
One year ago, when the community was making the decision to use Transifex as the translation management tool, a table was made to compare several different tools:
Now since Transifex began to close its source code, we will do another round of tool selection to find the translation management tool for Openstack translation.
We will start from requirements collection. Here I listed some. (Some are copied from the old table. The last three items are newly added. )
* Cross-project translation teams * Cross-project translation memory * Good in-browser translation interface * Good in-browser review interface * Easy import/export of translation files * Support for all common translation formats * Git/GitHub Integration * Hooks for CI infrastructure * Management workflows that fit OpenStack process * Self-hosted * Proven success with large projects * API to gather statistics about translators * Easily see the translating context, i.g. the paragraph or section that contains the translation string. * Cross-project glossary and dictionary
Please feel free to present your requirements to the translation management tool. If you know some good candidate tools, please speak out too. Let's find out the most appropriate tool together, and build a "wonderful" working environment for ourselves.
Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
_______________________________________________ Openstack-i18n mailing list Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
I see a row was added "Number of translators we would lose by moving to this solution". It would be interesting to know what translators would be "lost" and why. Nemo
How do you think using the same mechanism to track bugs as other projects (e.g. docs, infrastructure)? For example, bugs management in launchpad? The question is: when finding bugs, do we fix bugs through translation UI or updating po files directly? If we choose the later one, I think launchpad can be used. Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) Akihiro Motoki <amotoki@gmail.com> wrote on 2013/11/02 17:58:59:
Akihiro Motoki <amotoki@gmail.com> 2013/11/02 17:58
To
"openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org>,
cc
Subject
Re: [Openstack-i18n] Collecting requirements to translation tools
Hi,
I believe the list is becoming a good share already.
I would like to add
* Good review interfaces and tracking status of comments. * We need a discussion for better translation. The string seems wrong, I am sure what it means,..... * When the translation is updated, we need to confirm it is reasonably improved. * We need to track what are addressed and what are not. * Bug/Issue tracking * Discussion or Bug which is not specific to each translation should be handled in broader scope. E.g., translation memory related, upstream bugs, ..... (I am not sure these are good examples..)
Thanks, Akihiro
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc@cn.ibm.com> wrote: Hi, I18n team
One year ago, when the community was making the decision to use Transifex as the translation management tool, a table was made to compare several different tools: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqevw3Q- ErDUdFgzT3VNVXQxd095bFgzODRmajJDeVE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
Now since Transifex began to close its source code, we will do another round of tool selection to find the translation management tool for Openstack translation.
We will start from requirements collection. Here I listed some. (Some are copied from the old table. The last three items are newly added. )
* Cross-project translation teams * Cross-project translation memory * Good in-browser translation interface * Good in-browser review interface * Easy import/export of translation files * Support for all common translation formats * Git/GitHub Integration * Hooks for CI infrastructure * Management workflows that fit OpenStack process * Self-hosted * Proven success with large projects * API to gather statistics about translators * Easily see the translating context, i.g. the paragraph or section that contains the translation string. * Cross-project glossary and dictionary
Please feel free to present your requirements to the translation management tool. If you know some good candidate tools, please speak out too. Let's find out the most appropriate tool together, and build a "wonderful" working environment for ourselves.
Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
_______________________________________________ Openstack-i18n mailing list Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
_______________________________________________ Openstack-i18n mailing list Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
Hi Daisy and all, It may be off-topic already.... On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc@cn.ibm.com> wrote:
How do you think using the same mechanism to track bugs as other projects (e.g. docs, infrastructure)? For example, bugs management in launchpad?
Perhaps your are talking about the following topic in my mail.
* Bug/Issue tracking * Discussion or Bug which is not specific to each translation should be handled in broader scope. E.g., translation memory related, upstream bugs, ..... (I am not sure these are good examples..)
In general, the same mechanism should work. If a bug or topic is common to all languages it is very simple and the same mechanism should work. In many cases it is a bug of upstream projects (such as openstack-manuals, horizon, ...). What in my mind are for tracking topics rather than simple bugs. It is the reason The only difference is how to manage language-specific topics: For example, during Japanese translations there are a glossary discussion, wording policy throughout a single translation and across translations. It is better such topics are discussed in their native/local languages. If we use a common platform for I18N, is it confortable if multiple languages are used in a single bug system. I believe it is not comfortable. (For now, we Japanese team are using our own GitHub project and issue tracking system for this purpose.) Regards, Akihiro Motoki <amotoki@gmail.com>
The question is: when finding bugs, do we fix bugs through translation UI or updating po files directly? If we choose the later one, I think launchpad can be used.
Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
Akihiro Motoki <amotoki@gmail.com> wrote on 2013/11/02 17:58:59:
Akihiro Motoki <amotoki@gmail.com> 2013/11/02 17:58
To
"openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org>,
cc
Subject
Re: [Openstack-i18n] Collecting requirements to translation tools
Hi,
I believe the list is becoming a good share already.
I would like to add
* Good review interfaces and tracking status of comments. * We need a discussion for better translation. The string seems wrong, I am sure what it means,..... * When the translation is updated, we need to confirm it is reasonably improved. * We need to track what are addressed and what are not. * Bug/Issue tracking * Discussion or Bug which is not specific to each translation should be handled in broader scope. E.g., translation memory related, upstream bugs, ..... (I am not sure these are good examples..)
Thanks, Akihiro
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc@cn.ibm.com> wrote: Hi, I18n team
One year ago, when the community was making the decision to use Transifex as the translation management tool, a table was made to compare several different tools: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqevw3Q- ErDUdFgzT3VNVXQxd095bFgzODRmajJDeVE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
Now since Transifex began to close its source code, we will do another round of tool selection to find the translation management tool for Openstack translation.
We will start from requirements collection. Here I listed some. (Some are copied from the old table. The last three items are newly added. )
* Cross-project translation teams * Cross-project translation memory * Good in-browser translation interface * Good in-browser review interface * Easy import/export of translation files * Support for all common translation formats * Git/GitHub Integration * Hooks for CI infrastructure * Management workflows that fit OpenStack process * Self-hosted * Proven success with large projects * API to gather statistics about translators * Easily see the translating context, i.g. the paragraph or section that contains the translation string. * Cross-project glossary and dictionary
Please feel free to present your requirements to the translation management tool. If you know some good candidate tools, please speak out too. Let's find out the most appropriate tool together, and build a "wonderful" working environment for ourselves.
Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
_______________________________________________ Openstack-i18n mailing list Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
_______________________________________________ Openstack-i18n mailing list Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
participants (6)
-
Akihiro Motoki
-
chandan kumar
-
Federico Leva (Nemo)
-
Parag N(पराग़)
-
Stefano Maffulli
-
Ying Chun Guo