Day 3 - Critical discussion of the progress
Reinhard: There was some overlap. I was very frustrated. There were really only two types of projects presented. The ones to do with languages, or with networks of people and organisations. A few had to do with technology (but again to do with technology). But how about some of the important questions that have to do with localisation, for example how do you manage localisation of software through versions. When OpenOffice is upgraded, how do you deal with this.
Marcel: I don't think that in one hour we can produce a very detailed project that can be handed over to the IDRC tomorrow. What we tried to do here is to define the basis on which we can then work in the future. If we agree on re-organising or to consider the ideas that we discussed, it will be possible in the coming months to write in detail project proposals that are more feasible. I don't think how in the short lapse of time we could have come out with detailed projects.
Zenkouar: The projects lacked precision. Difficult to see if they could be realised even in 10 years. Maybe it makes more sense to specify for one or a few languages. Most of the projects were very general - they serve as research projects. Also, some were very amateur, not really precise with a clear goal, and who will do the work. What I think is very important is the alignment of policies. It would take three days to clarify the projects, and more than 10 years to implement them. We could speak about alternatives. Combine a few, to come up with some that deal with different technologies.
Paa Kwesi: All the things we heard about are important. For the process to succeed we need a process of resource building, good tools, and then we need training and the people to do the localisation. Within a big picture, the projects presented can be tied quite strongly to localisation.
Adel: Marcel made an important point. I think we asked a lot from this group. We knew we could ask a lot, but we knew that we could not go into tiny details. Some people say we don't have enough details - I think the level of details is quite enough. Let me speak about the projects that I saw, among the 12 projects I saw, there is some ambiguity regarding overlap. For example, we have to decide and explain, what we mean by survey on African language resources.
There is some overlap in the ideas, but sometimes the title leads us in the wrong direction. There is complementary very important, dwayne needs a dictionary for the tagging, there is another project that focuses on dictionaries that could be connected. What is missing is the bigger logic, on why are we doing this, and in what kind of logic are we applying to this? I think that is what Reinhard is mentioning, since there was not so much mention
The Asian project, they have a framework, they know what they have to do and in what part.
So what I saw, some very smart ideas, which have to be cleaned up - but the general logic exhaustive framework to bring together these ideas is still missing.
The work on language teaching on CDs or multimedia, this is a wonderful project, but it has nothing to do with localisation. Except if I had a complete working framework for learning of languages (maybe important for translators) then it might make sense in this context. But on itself, it has nothing to do with localisation.
It is necessary that you are more directive - explain what you expect from such a network.
You should be more directive, and less democratic. But it is up to you to tell us what is expected in terms of localisation. How can we link the projects with the expectations? We have to come back tomorrow and see how we can articulate them / how they can be pooled.
Let's not throw away the remaining project ideas / compile them in a way that we can build on them.
We should give more time to explain the processes, and how the results of our thinking / how the outcomes will be used.