Regain control over your data with XLIFF
Who does what in traditional translation workflows?
Content translation is a widespread need. Translation workflows range from short and simple to complex process chains with multiple parties involved. Accordingly, communication and configuration needs vary along the workflow. No matter whether you - as a content provider - use single or many service-providers service providers (LSP) for translation: Content always needs to be created, shared and translated. International standards in the localization industry - such as XLIFF, ITS and SRX - facilitate data exchange and minimize the need for communication. That's why Adobe has finally included it in the new FrameMaker. That is why we at c-rex.net have also adopted XLIFF and integrated XLIFF into our data conversion service c-rex.net .
Companies create their content and own their content as content creators.
The task and competence of the LSPs is to configure the CAT (Computer-Aided Translation) tools and to set up, manage and continuously adapt the data exchange workflows.
LSPs ensure high-quality translation and on-time delivery.
The actual translation is carried out by translators translators who are selected and qualified by the LSPs for this task.
In traditional translation workflows, roles are defined like this:
What changes with XLIFF? Will it be cheaper?
Working with XLIFF and similar standards eliminates time-consuming and repetitive configurations on the part of the LSP. Time to get excited about reduced LSP bills? Let's see ...
We touched on how XLIFF makes a difference in ourfirstpost about XLIFF and FrameMaker 2020. There we looked at the benefits of using XLIFF for day-to-day operations in multilingual content management workflows. We have seen that the former black box of pre-translation processes such as tagging and segmentation of the data to be translated can be moved from the LSP to the content owner with the support of XLIFF.
Today, we'd like to take a closer look at the cost implications of XLIFF. We had indicated that working with XLIFF would reduce the effort both in terms of cost and time.
The first voices from the translation industry were raised. Questions have arisen about how and where the financial benefit would come from. Behind this may be the fear that customers will start asking their LSPs for discounts on individual translation jobs if they can deliver projects in XLIFF.
Where are the potential savings? What are the main advantages?
It must be stated quite clearly that pure translation costs will not decrease. Finally, using XLIFF does not mean that there is less to translate. The cost advantage comes from the fact that essential information for the translation process is in the hands of the content provider and can therefore be transferred to LSPs without much communication effort. This involves, for example, marking content that is not to be translated or transmitting accompanying information in the metadata.
Companies thus become additional owners owners. Simply put: They can do whatever they want on their side: Change data structures, even formats and processes as needed. They always provide the same interface format (XLIFF). The internal changes do not affect LSPs. These always receive the same data format in the same way. You don't have to adapt anything just because processes, data structures and formats have changed.
The risks and causes of communication gaps are thus enormously reduced, if not avoided altogether. In addition, all LSPs - including their tools - can be quickly integrated into a company's translation process or replaced by other LSPs. From the perspective of the content-creating companies, this is an advantage because it gives them more data sovereignty for their translated content as well.
Of course, introducing new standards requires an initial investment of time and money. This also applies to XLIFF. But: Once a stable process has been defined and implemented, there is hardly any need for configuration on the LSP side in the future. When new LSPs come into play, all the necessary configurations are already in place. This not only significantly reduces the configuration effort for LSPs, but also the communication effort between content owner and LSP. Reconciling technical issues is now a thing of the past.
The potential savings clearly lie in a leaner, more reliable overall process from creation to translation to distribution with fewer queries, errors and loops.
Last but not least, stable processes not only reduce maintenance effort and thus costs. Stable and standardized processes are the ideal starting point for automation across different departments of a company or even between different manufacturing sites or companies.
Who does what in standardized translation workflows?
Companies create their content. In addition, companies now also take care of structure definition, metadata classification and the desired configuration for the content and its processing in the CAT tools for translation.
LSPs act as consultants and bring their expertise to the design of the in-house process. They help to set up the initial XLIFF configuration in FrameMaker (or other creation tools).
Once the process is set up, LSPs focus on their core competencies: selecting suitable translators, delivering a quality-assured, technically flawless translation of the content on time.
The actual translation is carried out by translators translators who are selected and qualified by the LSPs for this task.
In standardized translation workflows, roles are defined as follows:
Welcome to the new world of translation - where strengths are strengthened and weaknesses compensated for by intelligent workflows using recognized localization standards!