|
1
|
|
|
2
|
- What we look for …
- Decreasing production costs
- Publishing on demand
- What we hear …
- “XML solves all your problems and increases your revenues”
- What we get …
- Conversion to XML is expensive
- Cost often exceeds $1 Mio
- Often does not result in expected cost savings
|
|
3
|
- Solves publishing problems
- Single source publishing
- Multi-channel publishing
- Solves document quality problems
- Re-usage of information pieces
- Document consistency
- Solves translation / localization problems
- Layout / format representation
- Supports workflow better
- Inherently Internet based
|
|
4
|
- XML = Software Development ??
- Core Comparison with Software Development
- SE Tools and modern SE approaches solve your problems in software
development!
- It is the “how” not the “what”
- Structured Analysis
- Relational databases
- UML
- Object Oriented Programming
- Rapid development
- …
- One silver bullet …
- “Some Fool’s Gold is Silver …”
|
|
5
|
- SGML & XML
- Standards like DocBook
- Editors
- CMS/DMS
- Publishing
- Device independent publishing
- PDF
- Print & Digital
|
|
6
|
- Humax produces set top boxes in Korea
- World leader in Digital Satellite Receivers
- Set-top boxes
- Audio equipment
- Some Numbers
- ~ 100 multilingual manuals per year
- Different formats like MIF, RTF etc..
- 3 technical authors
- FIGS, Asian languages, Farsi, Arabic (BIDI)
- Production/translation from English
- ~ 500.000 $ translation costs
- ~ 100.000 $ DTP costs (without print)
- Humax Management considers this unacceptable expensive
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
- One standardized document format
- Publishing
- Simple Editing – similar as in WinWord
- PDF Output / HTML (for Web Sites)
- Editor starts the publishing production (Master)
- On demand publishing
- Automating Translation Process
- Translating from Korean (not English!)
- Integrating translators should be easy
- Reduce dependency on translation provider
- Simplified document management
- > 50 % cost savings
|
|
11
|
- Analysis
- Recommendations
- What we need to do to get better
- Implementation
- How we do it to achieve results
|
|
12
|
- Variety of document formats
- WinWord, MIF, various other formats
- partially language specific encoded
- Production costs caused by different document formats
- Translation Memory databases
- One external translation provider keeps the tm databases in its office
and perceives them as its property
- Translation system of provider only works out of English
- Quality of tm database contents extremely diverging
- Translation process relying only on one supplier
- Heavy dependency
- $ 400.000
|
|
13
|
- Conversion to XML
- Conversion of all documents to XML
- Must be introduced consequently
- Switch source editing to using XML Editor with Style sheets
- Moving towards internal
translation support system
- Using internally available server solution
- Converting external databases to standard TM representation
- Translating from any source language
- Accessible to different company departments
- Translators ceasing to work with original documents, working instead
with XML (XLIFF) localization standard
- Publishing into PDF
- Also into RTF, XHTML, text as well
|
|
14
|
- Analysis of document structures and databases
- Semantic structure of documents
- Necessary format support
- Mapping of documents into XML
- DTD design
- Subset of DocBook -> DocTrans DTD
- Conversion of existing documents to DocTrans
- Manual and as much as possible automatically
- Installation of translation server
- Conversion of external databases
- Contains simple document management system
- Changes in translation are automatically forwarded to tmx DB
- Several editing tools
- Installation of a simple Publishing-line
|
|
15
|
- Documents are managed in a web GUI
- XML Editor
- Creation/Editing of documents
- Open Source (Xerces, Xerlin, iText …)
- Uses DocTrans DTD
- Publisher for Output Generation
- Open Source (FOP, Batik, JDOM, Xalan, …)
- Optimized for PDF
- Technical Author runs it
|
|
16
|
- TM („Translation Memory“)
- MySQL – relational DB
- TMX – XML Standard for TMs
- Similarity based search and translation
- Web based
- Alignment tool
- Creation of TMX DB
- Editor
- Translation Editor
- Terminology Tool
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
- Printed output differing slightly from pre-conversion output
- XML ≠ Desktop Publishing Software
- Bugs/missing support in FOP (Open Source)
- Conversion of legacy data impossible or extremely complicated
- Documents must be converted manually
- Use of TM databases?
- Lacking Cooperation/Support
- Technical authors – job loss /reduced income
- Translation providers – looses influence and revenue by using XML
standards
- Production linkage - partially superfluous as cooperation directly with
translators
- DTP department/provider - becoming abruptly unnecessary
|
|
22
|
- Easier handling of documents
- Commonality derived from using XML Standards
- Real in substance derived from single source multiple target and
language publishing
- Solution portable to different OS (Linux)
- Unlimited re-use of documents
- Re-Usage in other applications
- True manifestation of “Knowledge management”
- Focus of technical authors and translators entirely on text, not on
layout
- Management no longer dependent on translation providers and publishers
- Improvement in production time and reliability
|
|
23
|
- Source document production
- Using TM technology to improve source document consistency
- Adding new tools
- Controlled language
- MT
- Grammar Checking
- Open Source Software
- …
|
|
24
|
- What we have to do …
- Conversion must be implemented consequently, no partial solutions
- Management must enforce conversion process
- Ability to pushing through towards external suppliers
- Management must invest time
- Convince technical authors that new publishing process makes life
easier and makes job safer
- What we have to accept …
- Be ready to accept partially restrictions in output
- Not all authors and translators may like it
- What we will achieve …
- Cost savings of > 50 % are possible
- Production times get shorter
- And the conversion costs are manageable
|
|
25
|
|