Thank you for the hint, Daniel.
The first part of QAing them will indeed be to get an overview:
- What dicts do we have?
- What dicts are "maintained", who is responsible?
- Which one is the latest and/or greatest
- What are the differences within one language (i.e. Dutch "green" vs.
"white", German "old vs. new"...)
- How do we get rid of "outdated" ones?
- What "quality level" do they have? This is
yet-to-be-defined-for-each-language, i.e. amount of "errors",
usefullness of proposals, memory and speed performance...
... since "QAing dictionaries" is no "industrial standard procedure", we
must find a way to get some kind of "structure" to do so.
It will be interesting to get "linguists" into QA work.
I heard that some native lang teams have a more or less strict
separation between localisation and QA.
I am looking forward to work in this "grey zone" this fall :-)
Regards
Stefan
Daniel Naber wrote:
On Thursday 02 August 2007 15:07, Stefan Baltzer wrote:
Since I am doing QA for the linguistic in general, I plan to "go for the
dictionaries" after OOo 2.3 is done.
Please be aware that the dictionaries that are part of OOo are not always
the latest version. For example, Björn Jacke is working on a new and
improved version, so you probably shouldn't spend much time trying to
evaluate or improve the versions that come with OOo (the same is true for
the thesaurus).
Regards
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
