New converter for SDLTM & SDLTB files Thread poster: Dominique Pivard
|
|---|
| |
It would be nice to know how reliable and full-featured these tools are. Did SDL release the spec of termbases and TMs, or are these tools based on reverse engineering them? Does SDL acknowledge these tools and give some sort of assurance that it won't change its file formats in a way that breaks these tools? Do we have some sort of assurance that the tool won't fail when you need it most?
Do these tools support everything in these formats or only a subset? If it's only a subset, exactly w... See more It would be nice to know how reliable and full-featured these tools are. Did SDL release the spec of termbases and TMs, or are these tools based on reverse engineering them? Does SDL acknowledge these tools and give some sort of assurance that it won't change its file formats in a way that breaks these tools? Do we have some sort of assurance that the tool won't fail when you need it most?
Do these tools support everything in these formats or only a subset? If it's only a subset, exactly what? MT termbase structures can be fiendishly complex, and there's quite a bit of stuff in TMs too (even segmentation rules of all kinds, which will surely be lost, but how about created/used/modified dates and so on?).
I feel that the advice of "go ahead and translate SDL packages by extracting the files and converting the TM and TB with some random third party tool" is a recipe for trouble. One would need to have a full bullet-point list about what features are supported (between the sdlxliff, the sdltb and the sdltm, there should be at least 20 bullet points, including comments, segment statuses, fuzzy percentage/perfectmatch/context match, termbase text fields and picklist items, the various TM fields and metadata etc.) ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Provided as is | Nov 4, 2012 |
FarkasAndras wrote:
It would be nice to know how reliable and full-featured these tools are.
I'll ask the developer to add a disclaimer stating the converter is a freeware program provided as is, without any guarantee whatsoever, just in case it is not obvious to everyone.
FarkasAndras wrote:
Does SDL acknowledge these tools
I'm not sure what you mean with "these". If you are talking about WfConverter.exe, definitely not: the author has no link whatsoever with SDL, and it's safe to say SDL doesn't endorse the program. If you are talking about GlossaryConverter, it's an OpenExchange plugin, so there's some kind of endorsement by SDL; besides, it's written by an SDL employee, though as a private person.
FarkasAndras wrote:
I feel that the advice of "go ahead and translate SDL packages by extracting the files and converting the TM and TB with some random third party tool" is a recipe for trouble.
Again: everyone use the these tools as their own risk, there is no promise or guarantee of success.
| | | |
Dominique Pivard wrote: FarkasAndras wrote:
Does SDL acknowledge these tools
I'm not sure what you mean with "these". If you are talking about WfConverter.exe, definitely not: the author has no link whatsoever with SDL, and it's safe to say SDL doesn't endorse the program. If you are talking about GlossaryConverter, it's an OpenExchange plugin, so there's some kind of endorsement by SDL; besides, it's written by an SDL employee, though as a private person.
There can be various levels of "acknowledgement". Releasing the spec (and committing to not changing it later) to help develop apps of this type, offering support (consultation) for people who develop tools like this, validating existing tools, providing support for them... That's the sort of distinction that can be very important. Whether or not the WfConverter is based on a full sdltm and sdltb spec released by SDL may be relevant to its reliability.
The same applies to things like the SDL XLIFF Converter for MS Office. It looks like it would be great in certain scenarios, but what if there is some subtle bug/incompatibility and I can't import the reviewed file back into my sdlxliff? This is the last step of the workflow, so if there is trouble, the project is likely to blow the deadline. It's from "SDL Community Developers", whoever they may be. Does that mean it's an official SDL product and it's guaranteed to work correctly with all sdlxliff files? Does SDL provide support for it in case there is a problem? There seems to be a pretty large grey area here.
Dominique Pivard wrote:
it's safe to say SDL doesn't endorse [WfConverter.exe]
I would agree, but does SDL have a problem with such apps being developed? Will they attempt to break such apps by tweaking their file formats? Probably not, but do they have a published spec they will stick to? For instance, the sdlxliff files of Studio2009 and Studio2011 are different and not fully compatible. If the TM format is tweaked in a similar way later, that might unexpectedly break WfConverter.
| | |
|
|
|
| No grey areas here | Nov 5, 2012 |
FarkasAndras wrote:
The same applies to things like the SDL XLIFF Converter for MS Office. It looks like it would be great in certain scenarios, but what if there is some subtle bug/incompatibility and I can't import the reviewed file back into my sdlxliff? This is the last step of the workflow, so if there is trouble, the project is likely to blow the deadline. It's from "SDL Community Developers", whoever they may be. Does that mean it's an official SDL product and it's guaranteed to work correctly with all sdlxliff files? Does SDL provide support for it in case there is a problem? There seems to be a pretty large grey area here.
Hi Farkas,
Each app on the OX is approved by SDL and each app has a support tab on the OX pages. So whilst SDL may not support them all (if we didn't develop them for example) we do make sure there is a support contact for each one.... as long as it has been submitted with support provided of course. So perhaps the advice should be don't use an app for a critical business process if it is unsupported?
Regards
Paul
| | | |
It looks like my worries about the external review functionality were not entirely academic.
Anyway, while it's nice to know that the availability of support is listed on the openexchange page of each tool, the grey area still persists regarding 3rd party tools like the ones by (?) Wordfast mentio... See more It looks like my worries about the external review functionality were not entirely academic.
Anyway, while it's nice to know that the availability of support is listed on the openexchange page of each tool, the grey area still persists regarding 3rd party tools like the ones by (?) Wordfast mentioned in this thread. Obviously, it's up to Wordfast to make things clear(er), but I wouldn't mind knowing SDL's position on tools like this. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Provided as is, works for some people | Nov 6, 2012 |
FarkasAndras wrote:
Whether or not the WfConverter is based on a full sdltm and sdltb spec released by SDL may be relevant to its reliability.
As I said, WfConverter is provided as is. It seems it works for some people, as reported here:
http://www.proz.com/post/2045923
It's what matters, isn't it?
| | | |
Dominique Pivard wrote: FarkasAndras wrote:
Whether or not the WfConverter is based on a full sdltm and sdltb spec released by SDL may be relevant to its reliability.
As I said, WfConverter is provided as is. It seems it works for some people, as reported here: http://www.proz.com/post/2045923 It's what matters, isn't it?
It works... until it doesn't. Even if we presume that it never fails outright, I guarantee that the functionality will not be 100% perfect for everyone in every scenario. For instance, it cannot possibly extract the segmentation rules, which in a remarkably silly turn of events SDL decided to put in TMs. If you were to use this tool without informing your client that you aren't using Studio, the segmentation would not be what the client might expect. Of course that's a minor issue but there are about a dozen other elements in sdltms that may get broken by third-party tools like this.
When using a tool in "live production", I like to know exactly what its feature set is, and how reliable it is. Obviously, WF has a stake in tools like this (they are able to say "Go ahead and buy Wordfast from us, and if a client gives you a Trados project, just convert the files with this handy tool and you can do the project in WordFast"). It seems to me that they are a bit reluctant to come clean about the inherent limitations of this approach. Honestly, I'm not even sure if this tool was written or validated by WordFast. They host it on their site but there seems to be no mention of it on wordfast.net.
Kilgray, for instance, published a reasonably thorough interoperability guide on their website, including a description of some of the limitations. WF would do well to follow suit.
| | |
|
|
|
| WfConverter is not for everyone | Nov 6, 2012 |
FarkasAndras wrote:
When using a tool in "live production", I like to know exactly what its feature set is, and how reliable it is.
Then it's quite clear WfConverter is not for you. So be it, but accept that other people may have less stringent requirements than you and may find it suitable for their needs.
FarkasAndras wrote:
Obviously, WF has a stake in tools like this (they are able to say "Go ahead and buy Wordfast from us, and if a client gives you a Trados project, just convert the files with this handy tool and you can do the project in WordFast").
Please show me where in the Wordfast site or in Wordfast's marketing material such a claim is being made.
FarkasAndras wrote:
It seems to me that they are a bit reluctant to come clean about the inherent limitations of this approach. Honestly, I'm not even sure if this tool was written or validated by WordFast.
The converter was neither written, not validated by Wordfast. Have a look at 'About' in the software (if you don't dare installing such an unreliable piece of software, you can see it at 02:20 in my video) and you will see it is written and copyrighted by a private person.
FarkasAndras wrote:
They host it on their site but there seems to be no mention of it on wordfast.net.
There's a good reason for that: it is neither written, not endorsed by Wordfast. As I said, it is provided as is. How many times do I need to repeat it?
Kilgray conducts their business as they see fit, and so does Wordfast.
| | | |
Dominique Pivard wrote: FarkasAndras wrote:
It seems to me that they are a bit reluctant to come clean about the inherent limitations of this approach. Honestly, I'm not even sure if this tool was written or validated by WordFast.
The converter was neither written, not validated by Wordfast. Have a look at 'About' in the software (if you don't dare installing such an unreliable piece of software, you can see it at 02:20 in my video) and you will see it is written and copyrighted by a private person. FarkasAndras wrote:
They host it on their site but there seems to be no mention of it on wordfast.net.
There's a good reason for that: it is neither written, not endorsed by Wordfast. As I said, it is provided as is. How many times do I need to repeat it?
You don't need to repeat it at all. It would be nice if wordfast said something about it, and it would be nice if the developer shipped it with a feature list and description of some sort.
Whichever way you look at it, they are endorsing it by hosting it. If they didn't see a business benefit in people knowing about it and having access to it, they obviously wouldn't host it on their own site. And let's face it, it's a tool called WfConverter.exe on wordfast.net; of course people are bound to assume it's associated with Wordfast. And WF is hosting it, as far as I can tell, without any sort of description or disclaimer.
Dominique Pivard wrote:
Kilgray conducts their business as they see fit, and so does Wordfast.
Indeed. And I am free to point out the differences between the approaches they take.
| | | | | SDLs position | Nov 11, 2012 |
FarkasAndras wrote:
Anyway, while it's nice to know that the availability of support is listed on the openexchange page of each tool, the grey area still persists regarding 3rd party tools like the ones by (?) Wordfast mentioned in this thread. Obviously, it's up to Wordfast to make things clear(er), but I wouldn't mind knowing SDL's position on tools like this.
Hi Farkas,
We don't have a position on this tool. It wasn't created by us or anyone partnering with us so we really know nothing about it other than some basic testing out of interest. Certainly we would not suggest anyone use it as there would be no point... unless we were encouraging the use of other tools... which we are not. Any one of our customers needing to share resources with another tool they happen to own has ample resources at their disposal that we would recommend.
Regards
Paul
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » New converter for SDLTM & SDLTB files | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to CAT tools
