![]() If all tools then used this same file format, it would be fairly easy to switch from one tool to another. Whatever tool you used, you would be able to import the source documents into it and store them into this fully multilingual and context-rich format. The original idea was to develop a single XML-based file format to standardize the way localizable data pass between tools during a localization process. We are talking about the XML Localisation Interchange File Format, better known as XLIFF. In recent years, however, one standard has come closer to breaking the stagnation cycle than the rest and has given us some hope. Such altruistic efforts can hardly keep up with the evolution of the industry in general and the roadmaps of the tool providers. Why does this happen? The truth is that there are very few people working on standards worldwide, and much of that work is done pro bono. Little work has been done on it in the past 10 years, but it’s still widely used. TMX is another example of a file format created as a standard for the exchange of translation memory data. Over the years, many different XML standards have been through the same lifecycle: a standard is proposed, sufficient work is done to make it a reality, and then, rather than stopping its development or finalizing it, we let the proposed standard stagnate. For that reason, most of our hopes for interoperability are vested in language industry standards. Even if you are the biggest fan of interoperability, making it happen can prove to be quite a financial struggle. Those proprietary formats are the result of considerable investment from their developers, and like in any other sector, it’s bad news when you see something that you created being used by others in a way that diminishes your revenue.Īnother factor slowing down interoperability is the cost associated with developing the technology and functionality to support it. Still, there’s an obvious advantage in a provider being able to work with the proprietary file formats of their competitors. As a result, most tool vendors have developed their own proprietary file format. Translation technology is a highly competitive but small sector, and each tool vendor is trying to maximize any perceived advantage of one tool over another. If interoperability is such a good thing, what’s preventing this dream from becoming reality? The answer is competition. What Stands in the Way of Better Interoperability? Having exchangeable, interoperable formats would simplify this task, allowing translators to focus more time on the core value of their business: translation. ![]() Translators could then pick their favorite tool, master it, and use it for all of their customers.Īnother important virtue of interoperability is that it would help reduce “file format panic.” Translators spend a great deal of time every day trying to decipher how to turn the files they receive from a customer into something that they can feed into their translation tools (e.g., translation memory). Now just imagine if the tools were interoperable. Let’s not forget the corresponding time and financial investment involved with purchasing, learning, and troubleshooting each tool. If the tools are not interoperable, a translator might have to use Trados to work with one customer, memoQ for another, and Wordfast for yet another. Still, the importance of giving translators the freedom to choose is quite evident. In an ideal scenario you would be able to work seamlessly with whatever tool you prefer for each project. ![]() Interoperability does not mean that all tools will work in the same way, offer the same functionality, or give you the same results. (Figure 1 below illustrates how this should work.) Then they can all import the files, work on them, and export them without any problems. In other words, translation companies and the translators with whom they work should be able to use whatever tool works for them. Usually when we talk about interoperability we are talking about compatibility between one translation tool and another (e.g., your preferred computer-assisted translation tool, translation environment tool, or translation memory system). Read on to find out what has been accomplished so far in this area, what’s preventing better interoperability, and some strategies for improving the situation. In the following we hope to help the reader understand what interoperability is in the context of the translation industry and why it’s critical for how translators and translation companies work. How important is interoperability in the translation industry? What is it and how is it achieved? What is being done to improve the interoperability of the tools we use?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |