[open-data-manual] Weekly update - move to Github, infrastructure for translations

Rufus Pollock rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Thu Aug 4 11:26:36 UTC 2011

On 3 August 2011 18:43, Tim McNamara <paperless at timmcnamara.co.nz> wrote:
> On 4 August 2011 04:01, Friedrich Lindenberg
> <friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Tim McNamara <tim.mcnamara at okfn.org> wrote:
>>> Translations
>>> =========
>>> https://www.transifex.net/projects/p/open-data-manual/
>>> I have create a Transifex project. This is a site that shares the load
>>> of translation between all projects that are part of it. That means,
>>> if we translate the term "Open knowledge is good", every project on
>>> the site gets to benefit. There are just over 1,500 projects in the
>>> system.
>> Rufus and I just had a discussion on this. While I'm sure that
>> Transifex (or gettext in general) is the best way to do a straight
>> translation of the manual into another language, I'm not entirely
>> convinced this is what we want to aim for with the translated
>> versions: I think it makes little sense to just convert the somewhat
>> generic English version into a German or French version, in those
>> cases you do want to add chapters (e.g. on copyright exceptions,
>> federal structure etc.) that would have no place in the "Global"
>> edition. Otherwise you need two documents: the translated thing and a
>> "what this means for X" version. The distinction makes sense for
>> English, but not languages that are somewhat coupled to a legal
>> environment.
>> What do other people think?
>> - Fr.
> I agree that a pure translation approach would be detrimental to the
> project. However, languages cross locales. If there are elements which

I'm not so sure that pure translation is problem -- most of the core
material is generic. Furthermore, it will be *much* easier to get pure
translation done, to manage it and to update it going forward ...

> are specific to jurisdictions, then perhaps we should have new
> sections created in that language and then bring them back into
> English?

I think an approach that involved 'pure' translation of core and the
addition of new sections of annexes which are jurisdiction specific
might kill two birds with one stone.


More information about the open-data-handbook mailing list