RESTful Solutions For Localization Interoperability ......L&T web services a topic on its own....

RESTful Solutions For

Localization Interoperability Concerns

Jörg Schütz, bioloom group

FEISGILTT 2012, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A

L&T orders are unexpectedly modified by an MLV. L&T orders are split apart by the MLV due to

delivery bottlenecks resulting in new translator assignments.

L&T PMs complain about MLV’s L&T quality, invoices and service in general.

Incoming L&T deliveries are partial, or missing, and reminders are necessary.

L&T orders are unexpectedly modified by an MLV. L&T orders are split apart by the MLV due to

delivery bottlenecks resulting in new translator assignments.

L&T PMs complain about MLV’s L&T quality, invoices and service in general.

Incoming L&T deliveries are partial, or missing, and reminders are necessary.

When and how often are orders modified? How often and in which scenarios are

orders split? What were PMs complaining about? How many reminders were necessary until

the PMs accepted the delivered language product?

Integration Scenario

Existing SOA/WS-*

Stack

RESTFul Web

Services

Combined Ecosystem

Imperative contracts and static metadata

Convey application protocol information in declarative & just-in-time fashion

Today’s Agenda

L&T web services a topic on its own.

Data formats vs. functional concerns.

Importance of common services.

Diversity in a localization ecosystem.

Relative costs WS-* vs. REST. Contributions of standards. Vendor pull vs. buyer push, and general polling.

Q&A

L&T Web Services

Core

Business

Entities

Tools

Assets

BPM

WS-*

vs.

REST

Data Formats vs. Functional Concerns

• LT Standards

• Interpretation and Lock-in

Data Formats

• Semantic Markup

• Hypermedia Controls

Functions

Data Formats vs. Functional Concerns

• LT Standards

• Interpretation and Lock-in

Data Formats

• Semantic Markup

• Hypermedia Controls

Functions

TIPP

Excursion: TIPP

Automation Human

Consumption

Translation only

From Authoring to

Publishing

Inte

rop

era

bili

ty N

ow

! Lin

po

rt

Co

nta

iner

Met

aph

or

Excursion: TIPP \ cont.

Translation:

"Request"

or

"Response"

Task Type

Metadata:

- Creator

- Task

- Content Description

Manifest

- XLIFF:doc

- Terminology

- TMX

- References

- STS

Payload

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <TIPManifest xmlns:xsi=http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation=http://interoperability-now.org/TIPP/schema/TIPManifest-1-4.xsd version="1.4">

<GlobalDescriptor> <UniquePackageId>urn:uuid:12345-abc-6789-aslkjd-19193la-as9911</UniquePackageId> <PackageCreator> <Name>Welocalize</Name> <ID>http://w01.welocalize.com/globalsight</ID> <Update>2011-05-09T22:45:00Z</Update> <Tool> <ToolName>GlobalSight 9.0</ToolName> <ToolID>http://www.globalsight.com</ToolID> <ToolVersion>9.0</ToolVersion> </Tool> </PackageCreator> <TaskRequest> <Task> <TaskType>http://interoperability-now.org/TIPP/schema/tasks/v1/translate-strict-bitext</TaskType> <SourceLanguage>en-US</SourceLanguage> <TargetLanguage>fr-FR</TargetLanguage> </Task> </TaskRequest> </GlobalDescriptor> <PackageObjects> … </PackageObjects> </TIPManifest>

TIPP Manifest: “Request”

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <TIPManifest xmlns:xsi=http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation=http://interoperability-now.org/TIPP/schema/TIPManifest-1-4.xsd version="1.4">

<GlobalDescriptor> … <TaskResponse> <Task> <TaskType>http://interoperability-now.org/TIPP/schema/tasks/v1/translate-strict-bitext</TaskType> <SourceLanguage>en-US</SourceLanguage> <TargetLanguage>fr-FR</TargetLanguage> </Task> <InResponseTo> <UniquePackageId>urn:uuid:12345-abc-6789-aslkjd-19193la-as9911</UniquePackageId> <PackageCreator> … </PackageCreator> </InResponseTo> <ResponseMessage>Success</ResponseMessage> <ResponseComment> … </ResponseComment> </TaskResponse> </GobalDescriptor> <PackageObjects> … </PackageObjects> … </TIPManifest>

TIPP Manifest: “Response”

Projection of Application Protocol

Links build Domain APs

Dynamic Business

Workflows

Annotated Meaning

State of L&T order Translator assignment Quality ranking …

Embedded in Representations Guiding Rules for Consumers

Hypermedia Formats

Pure XML Approach

System Integration

No guiding rules

No context

No loose coupling

Out-of-band information needed to progress

Service Implementation

Documentation

Static Contracts

URI Templates

How it Works

Build on already existing XML schemas Add hypermedia controls by defining Links Semantic markup

General Downside: Closed Ecosystem

HTTP Content-Type header + HTTP Verbs

Summary: DAP

DAB

Media Types

Link Relations HTTP Idioms

Representation Format: Schemas Processing Models Linking

Manipulate Resources Roles of linked Resources

Summary: Business Process

Initial Request to Entry Point

of Service

Resource Representation

with Links

Link Selection to Transition to

next Step

Service Consumer

Service Provider

Service Consumer

Exchange of Representations of Resource State.

Links advertise legitimate Application State Transition

Benefits of RESTful L&T Services

Fully employs the concept of (language) resources.

Integrates with already existing modeling practice in enterprise environments.

Fosters dynamic evolution, ensures co-existence, and even allows for the full integration of two ecosystems.

Allows for the discovery of new cross-fertilization challenges.

Common Services

Widely accepted implementation strategy to account for a common understanding of available services and their Web contracts.

Employment of already existing standards for certain representations of language resources and supporting descriptions.

Based on Web standards in multiple dimensions from distribution to semantic annotation.

Diversity in L&T Ecosystem

“Health” of Ecosystem

RESTful Services

WS-* Services

Language Assets

LT Tools

Key Performance Indicators

Relative Costs

Standards

Push/Pull Model

Key Performance Indicators

Relative Costs

Standards

Push/Pull Model

Hypermedia based services are straightforward to design, implement, and test using familiar tools and libraries. Management backing is mandatory as well as are skilled developers, sufficient time and money.

Key Performance Indicators

Relative Costs

Standards

Push/Pull Model

General modeling and documentation support, different description formats for language resources, formal frameworks for semantic annotations and provenance information, and service bindings.

Key Performance Indicators

Relative Costs

Standards

Push/Pull Model MLV pull instead of the traditional buyer push as well as possible long polling, a variant of classic polling to emulate an information push between service participants; various Atom/AtomPub binding scenarios.

Conclusions

L&T web services a topic on its own.

Data formats vs. functional concerns.

Importance of common services.

Diversity in a localization ecosystem.

Relative costs WS-* vs. REST. Contributions of standards. Vendor pull vs. buyer push, and general polling.

The End…

L&T web services a topic on its own.

Data formats vs. functional concerns.

Importance of common services.

Diversity in a localization ecosystem.

Relative costs WS-* vs. REST. Contributions of standards. Vendor pull vs. buyer push, and general polling.

Q&A

The End…

L&T web services a topic on its own.

Data formats vs. functional concerns.

Importance of common services.

Diversity in a localization ecosystem.

Relative costs WS-* vs. REST. Contributions of standards. Vendor pull vs. buyer push, and general polling.

Q&A