IATE:Improving the feedback mechanism and the validation workflow

IATE IATE (The EU's multilingual term base)

belongs to translators: it serves their need for reliable terminology related to the texts they translate.

The role of terminologists is to help translators in consulting and feeding their terminological database that should be the one-stop shop for terminology.

IATEwould, ideally, provide an immediate answer to

all their queries, but this is clearly impossible

IATE: WEAK POINTS When the end users find mistakes, as

they inevitably will, it is very complicated and time consuming for them to correct them or report them.

IATE: WEAK POINTS When it fails to provide an adequate

answer, and they seek elsewhere, it should be easy for them to record the results of their research in IATE for future reference — whether this means creating a new entry, or updating an existing one.

IATE: WEAK POINTS If they are really "stuck", they should

be able to request help via the interface not by sending an old-fashioned email (which will be categorically ignored or deleted).

PROPOSED SOLUTION:IMPROVING THE FEEDBACK MECHANISM AND THE VALIDATION WORKFLOW

IMPROVING THE FEEDBACK MECHANISM

The feedback should be processed electronically by means of a project tracking tool for teams*.

This tool should track bugs and defects, link issues to the related entry, monitor activity, report on project validation status, and more.

The project tracking tool should facilitate the coordination within the team of the feedback management.

(*See for example: JIRA)

MOCK-UP OF A POSSIBLE USE OF A PROJECT TRACKING TOOL FOR TEAMS TO IMPROVE THE TERMINOLOGY WORKFLOW OF IATE

IMPROVING THE FEEDBACK MECHANISM The feedback is gathered through an entry

mask The entry mask for the terminological data

should contain fields for additional comments providing the possibility for a more interactive discussion among users (other than the passive system of "marks" foreseen) and requiring a follow-up.

IMPROVING THE VALIDATION WORKFLOW The most effective way to validate the formal

structure would be an automatic check run by a recording system allowing the final registration of a record only on condition that all formal requirements are met.

In this case the creator of the entry clears errors on the spot.

IMPROVING THE VALIDATION WORKFLOW The subject field experts — either internal

or external — are granted access to the databases via intranet or internet for the content-related check.

The experts either enter their comments directly into the system.

The terminological entry is validated by changing its status code. Or else, the entries are modified according to the terminologists’ and subject field experts’ comments, and a new validation cycle starts.

IMPROVING THE VALIDATION WORKFLOW In order to ensure a transparent validation

workflow which is crucial particularly for terminology databases updated and expanded on a regular basis, the project team should work out a range of status codes at term level, according to ISO 12620.

IMPROVING THE VALIDATION WORKFLOW On the interface level, the validation system

would be developed following not only the soon to be released ISO 26162, but also the usability standards put forth by ISO TC 159, merging ergonomics, terminology, methodology, and human factors data.

IMPROVING THE VALIDATION WORKFLOW An  electronic internet forum can be also

established, providing a platform for the discussion of controversial matters.

CONCLUSION Nowadays terminology is electronic data:

usability experts, developers and terminologists should better cooperate to provide a system that allows the terminologists to work in an efficient and reliable way.