[od-discuss] Fwd: Possibly inappropriate Japanese translation of two clauses of "Open Definition"

Thu Mar 20 16:21:37 UTC 2014

forwarding to list for the record because I forgot to cc.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Possibly inappropriate Japanese translation of
two clauses of "Open Definition"
To: ishikawa at yk.rim.or.jp

Hi Chiaki,

Thank you very much for this detailed and thoughtful contribution.  I know
for my own part I have been reading it as time permits and have not made my
way through the entire email yet.

I think your suggestions are good but I just wanted to be sure to read
through it in it's entirety before putting in my own thoughts.

This is the right list to post it to.

Thanks,
Herb

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:38 PM, <ishikawa at yk.rim.or.jp> wrote:

> (Hi, I sent this out to "opendefinition [at] okfn [dot] org" on March 7,
> but did not hear response,
> and figured maybe the discussion list is where I should post it.
> So I am re-submitting it here. Linebreak positions are somewhat modified.
> Sorry for rather lengthy posting.
> TIA.)
>
> Dear sir/madam,
>
> I have come across "Open Definition" in your web page,
> http://opendefinition.org
>
> I appreciate the contribution in defining the fundamental concept of
> "Open Knowledge" and "Open Data", etc.
>
> In my line of work, I have come to know CKAN and the great efforts by
> the Australian government to
> make what they called "Public Sector Information" available to the
> general public.
> It is heartening to see the contribution from CKAN people and people
> involved in the open data efforts in Australia in your "Open Definition"
> page.
>
> However, while perusing the definition, I notice there are a couple of
> places where the corresponding Japanese translation, available at open
> definition
> web site,could be improved to reflect the original
> English definition (I take that the original definition was given in
> English and then translated into various languages of the world
> including Japanese)
>
> In this e-mail, I would like to point out the problematic places and
> suggest possible improvements.
>
> I am cc'ing this message to an e-mail address
> lod-challenge at sfc.keio.ac.jp
> I found by looking for "Linked Open Data Challenge Committee"
> which is given the credit as the translator of the definition into
> Japanese
> near the bottom of Japanese translation page
> http://opendefinition.org/od/japanese/
> I see "Translated by Linked Open Data Challenge Committee, Japan."
> there.
>
> If the above is not correct address, I would appreciate to know it and
> hopefully people at okfn.org can pass this to the original Japanese
> translator(s) for their opinion.
>
> [ADDED COMMENT on March 19: No, I am not sending this out to the above .jp
> address this time.
> Still if someone knows a better address, I would like to hear about it.
> TIA.]
>
>
> By the way, as you will see, you may want to clarify the original
> English expression a bit
> for the benefit of translators, too
>
> Here the two cases in point.
>
> (1)  Japanese translation: The first clause of the "Open Definition"
>
> http://opendefinition.org/od/
>
> --- Begin Quote ---
> 1. Access
>
> The work shall be available as a whole and at no more than a reasonable
> reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without
> charge. The work must also be available in a convenient and modifiable
> form.
> --- End Quote
>
> The corresponding current Japanese translation given in
> http://opendefinition.org/od/japanese/
>
> --- begin quote
> 1．アクセス
>
> 作品の一部ではなく全てが、複製のための適正な価格あるいはインターネットに よる無償ダウンロードにより提供されてなければなりません。また、作品は、変
> 更可能で便利な形式で提供されなければいけません。
> --- end quote
>
> What is the problem?
>
> My take on the first sentence of the definition with regard to the COST
> is that
>  - the knowledge should be made available at no more than a reasonable
> reproduction cost,
>  and "PREFERABLY" (in this age of the Internet)
>  "downloading via the Internet without charge" is a good SUGGESTED
> EXEMPLARY method IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO.
>
> I say "if it is possible to do so" because many organizations due to
> the maintenance of network, and network fee (if you have gigabytes of
> geographical data, for example), they would think
> twice before making the data available over the network for fear of
> running out of network bandwidth. Someone has got to pay for the
> infrastructure cost somehow.
>
> So, the "downloading via the Internet without charge" is JUST ONE
> EXAMPLE of "be made available at no more than
> a reasonable reproduction cost.". There are many different means with
> different cost structure, shades of grey so to speak,  (which must be
> "at no more than a reasonable reproduction cost"), and probably the
> most inexpensive and trouble-free method is the one EXAMPLE given as
> "downloading via the Internet without charge".
>
> That is my reading of the English definition and I am more or less
> confident that was the original intention behind the English definition.
>
> What the Japanese sentence suggests currently:
> Unfortunately, Japanese translation of this sentence with regard to the
> COST issue loses this nuance of
> shades of grey:
> "複製のための適正な価格*あるいは*インターネットによる無償ダウンロードに より提供されてなければなりません。"
>
> I put "*"s around "あるいは" which is equivalent to "OR" that shows
> ALTERNATIVE, not something that fits
> in the general category with different degree of cost issue as in the
> original English.
> It is as if the first sentence of the original English definition read,
> "The work shall be available as a whole and at no more than a
> reasonable reproduction cost, *OR* shall be available by downloading via
> the Internet without charge."
>
> The above does seems strange because "downloading via the Internet
> without charge" *IS* an access method "at no more than a reasonable
> reproduction cost".
>
> My suggested change:
>
> I think the current Japanese translation should be changed to stress
> the original intention of allowing different cost structure for
> reproduction, and that downloading via the Internet is JUST ONE
> PREFERRED EXAMPLE.: my suggested translation is
>
> ---- begin quote
> 1．アクセス
>
> 作品の一部ではなく全てが、複製のための適正な価格で提供されなければなりま せん。
> 可能であればインターネットによる無償ダウンロードが望まれます。
> また、作品は、変更可能で便利な形式で提供されなければいけません。
> ---- end quote
>
> The original second sentence is not touched.
> The original first sentence is divided into two:
> The first part:「作品の一部ではなく全てが、複製のための適正な価格で提供 されなければなりません。」
> This translates back into English as
> "The work shall be available as a whole and at no more than a
> reasonable reproduction cost."
> The second part: 「可能であればインターネットによる無償ダウンロードが望 まれます。」
> This translates into English as
> "If possible, downloading via the Internet without charge is preferred."
>
> I added "If possible" which is IMPLICIT in the original English
> definition, and I believe many English-speaking people read this
> with this implicit understanding. But may I suggest that the English
> definition might be changed a bit to stress this to help many non-native
> English speakers (and many are techies rather than people who regularly
> read English legal documents)?
>
> (2) Clause 4.
>
> Another place where I think Japanese translation could be improved, and
> the original English expression can be changed a little to help the
> non-native English speaking world (and for techies specially) is the
> following sentence in Clause 4.
>
> --- Begin Quote
> 4. Absence of Technological Restriction
>
> The work must be provided in such a form that there are no
> technological obstacles to the performance of the above activities. This
> can be achieved by the provision of the work in an open data format,
> i.e. one whose specification is publicly and freely available and which
> places no restrictions monetary or otherwise upon its use.
> --- End Quote
>
> My reading of the paragraph: The first sentence defines the requirement
> ("must").
> The second sentence gives AN EXAMPLE of how this "CAN" (emphasis mine)
> be achieved.
>
> I believe no one argues my reading here (well, I hope.).
>
> However, please note that since the second sentence in the original
> description explains ONLY ONE EXAMPLE
> of how to meet the requirements spelled out in the first sentence,
> there MAY BE (CAN BE) OTHER methods how to
> meet the requirements of the first sentence. OK?
> That is, there is AN IMPLICIT "For example, " before the second
> sentence. "This can be achieved ...".
>
> I hope my reading of the Clause 4, especially the relationship of the
> first sentence and the second sentence
> with regard to the implicit and missing "For example, " at the
> beginning of the second sentence is OK.
>
> With this understanding, when I look at the corresponding Japanese
> translation, I see a room for improvement.
> The Japanese translation:
> --- begin quote ---
> 4．技術的制約の排除
>
> 作品は、上記に示した操作を行う場合に技術的な支障がない形式で提供されなけ ればなりません。これは、仕様が公開され自由に利用可能で、料金や利用につい
> ての制限が課されてないオープンデータ形式を用いて作品を提供することによっ て達成することができます。
> --- end quote ---
>
> If you look at the individual sentences, the individual translation *may*
> look OK.
> The first sentence: "作品は、上記に示した操作を行う場合に技術的な支障が ない形式で提供されなければなりません。"
> The second sentence:
> "これは、仕様が公開され自由に利用可能で、料金や利用についての制限が課さ れてないオープンデータ形式を用いて作品を提供することによって達成すること
> ができます。"
>
> However,
> I am raising an issue based on my experience of looking at software
> licenses starting in the 1980's as someone involved in
> software localization project. Japanese language structure (especially
> the power of auxiliary verb) is not so well fit for legal documents, and
> when I translated the English License of US and European software products,
> often I had to insert additional conjunction to avoid misunderstanding
> on the side of Japanese readers (would be users of software packages.)
> who read the "translated" Japanese license. I needed to "resurrect" the
> implicit assumptions in the original English documents clearly in the
> translated Japanese documents. (This happens often when the auxiliary
> verbs such as "must", "may", "would", etc. are used, say, in conjunction
> with "subjunctive mood").  I did a lot of software localization in
> 1980-1990's, and had to add these conjunctions awkwardedly.
>
> The case in point here: the implicit and missing "For example, " is
> hard to deduce from the current Japanese translation of the
> paragraph in Clause 4. Yes, the people who created the Japanese
> translation may say, "it is obvious"
> Yes right. Translation of the each individual sentence may be OK.  But
> I would say, without mentioning "For example, " explicitly,
> about half the CASUAL Japanese readers of the Japanese translation
> would not catch that the second sentence is giving an exemplary method
> to meet the requirement of the first sentence when they read this
> translated Japanese paragraph.
> Rather, I would say, on the first reading, the majority might make a
> mistake of thinking that  the second sentence  *MUST* be observed
> instead of it being an example that should be treated as such.
>
> Problem is that not many Japanese readers of the definition check the
> original English definition and realize the subtle issue here.
>
>
> My suggested change: (add the equivalent of "For example, " to the
> beginning of
> the second sentence.)
> --- begin quote ---
> 4．技術的制約の排除
>
> 作品は、上記に示した操作を行う場合に技術的な支障がない形式で提供されなけ ればなりません。*例えば*,
> これは、仕様が公開され自由に利用可能で、料金や利用についての制限が課され てないオープンデータ形式を用いて作品を提供することによって達成することが
> できます。
> --- end quote ---
>
> In the above, I put "例えば," (the Japanese equivalent of "For example, ")
> to the beginning of the second sentence.
>
> The above are two places where I felt we can improve the Japanese
> translation.
>
> In general, trying to define something precisely in natural language as
> in here or as in many
> legal document needs careful attention to details. Aside from
> mathematics where rigorous systems of logic and symbols help, legal
> documents and the type of definition given
> by "Open Definition" try to do this almost impossible natural language
> task head-on.
> So I applaud that the contributors have created the "Open Definition"
> so far considering the difficulty of doing this.
>
> However, as I noted above, I think the Japanese translation can be
> improved to avoid the possible misunderstanding(s) by the casual Japanese
> readers and to
> reflect the original English definition more closely.
> Also, the original English definition could be modified ever so
> slightly to avoid the kind of issues, such as losing the implicit nuances
> that are universally
> understood by English-speaking community, that can happen during
> translation.
>
> Yes, precise definition is difficult, but to convey that into a
> different natural language may be more difficult.
> (I checked the French translation, and that does not seem to have the
> problems I realized in the Japanese translation. Maybe the Japanese
> language is so removed from European languages and that may cause the
> issues. But my experience tells me legal documents that need precise
> definitions require a very different mind set from the one that is
> necessary for translating other types of documents. And I think there is
> no inherent problem in English to Japanese translation if we are careful
> enough. Diligence, certainly, is required to keep tabs on the type of
> issues I raise as noted above.)
>
> Anyway, thank you for making this great definition available over the
> Internet.
>
> I hope the issues I raised in this e-mail help us to improve the
> definition in the long run.
>
> Best Regards,
> Chiaki Ishikawa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140320/112de988/attachment-0002.html>