[Pangloss] Re: glossary (Pangloss) -- accounts for proof readers

[Steve Purkis]

Hmm.. 'Pangloss'?  Name changed again?  ;-)

Yeah - I prolly didn't explain the need for proof reader accounts too well
earlier.

The way Multikulti operates at the moment, a document is sent off to a
translator along with the terminology sheet (which may or may not contain
translations) to be translated.  When the translated version comes back it
and the terminology sheet are sent to a proof reader.

The proof reader makes any corrections necessary to both the translated
document and any new translations on the terminology sheet.  This then
goes back to the translator, and the process is repeated as necessary.

The role the administrator (ie. Njomeze) plays here is to select keywords,
write up terminology sheets, and co-ordinate the flow of documents between
translators & proof readers.

Now, we'd originally assumed that the administrator was responsible for
defining terminology keywords and accepting/rejecting translations of
them.  That breaks down when you realize Njomeze can't possibly accept or
reject translations in languages she doesn't know -- so either the proof
readers or the translators have to do it.  I'm assuming it should be the
proof reader's responsibility, but we might wanna pass that by Dan +
Njomeze.

Not only that, but the proof readers have to be able to write comments
on the translated documents without modifying the original version (I'm
assuming that's why you're introducing version control), so that means
they will already have 'editor' accounts in MKDoc.  It hardly makes sense
to have 2 seperate systems for the translators & proof readers to log
into -- simplicity is one of Njomeze's requirements -- so ideally the 2
systems would be able to share users.

So, to sum it up there are 4 types of 'Actors' on the system:
	Administrators
	Translators
	Proof Readers
	Users

Not including developers & sysadmins of course ;-).

Well, that wasn't exactly brief, but I hope it explains things better.

Regards,
-Steve


On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, adam moran wrote:

> hi steve,
>
> can you breifly write up why the proof readers need accounts because
> when i started to explain it to people here, it became obviouse that i'd
> not listened properly
>
> thanks
>
> --
> adam
>
>

+--
 Steve Purkis <spurkis at epn.nu>