Consider removal of distinction between script and transcript in chapter 2.1

[andreastai]

The distinction between script and transcript in chapter 2.1 is confusing. While script is used here for differentiation, the term 'script,' in combination with the type of domain or workflow, is used as a superset. Thus, a DAPT script or a Dubbing script can be both a script and a transcript. It is worth considering whether the differentiation in 2.1 is redundant since the ScriptType values already sufficiently differentiate various script types.

[nigelmegitt]

See also #169 which is perhaps tangentially related.

Looking at this, we don't use the term "script" alone to mean either a transcript or a script, we only use "DAPT Script" or dubbing script. Arguably, "dubbing script" should be defined in terms of "DAPT Script", but I'm not sure that would make much difference, practically.

@andreastai do you have in mind an alternative wording to replace the shorthand of "script" being either a pre-recording script or a transcript?

I think the job that §2.1 is trying to do is introducing the problem space and the terminology being used within it. Unless we replace "DAPT script" with "DAPT transcript or script" everywhere, and do the same for dubbing script, or find another term that is the superset of "transcript" and "script" I'm not sure how to improve this.

[andreastai]

@nigelmegitt To use "script" as a superset for pre-recording script or transcript is ok. But I think it should then not be used as a term that separate a type of document from a "transcript" as in:

In dubbing workflows, a transcript is generated and translated to create a script.

You may want to change it to "...is generated and translated to create a pre-recording script"

[nigelmegitt]

I think I don't agree that "script" on its own is used as a superset - is it not always part of a defined term like "DAPT script" or "dubbing script"?

If we used "pre-recording script" as you suggest @andreastai then we would be introducing a different point of confusion because we have a scriptType value of preRecording.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed Consider removal of distinction between script and transcript in chapter 2.1 w3c/dapt#175, and agreed to the following:

• SUMMARY: Reword §2.1 para 1 to allow for "script" to include "transcript" as a special case.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<nigel> Subtopic: Consider removal of distinction between script and transcript in chapter 2.1 #175
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/175
<nigel> Andreas: I'm not sure if my point was clear or if you understood it?
<nigel> Cyril: My understanding is that you're saying "DAPT Script", because it can refer either to
<nigel> .. a transcript or a script, is confusing. Is that right?
<nigel> Andreas: You say in §2.1 that script and transcript are mutually exclusive in their meanings, but
<nigel> .. then you use one of them as a superset of the other.
<nigel> .. This basic description of transcript and script doesn't seem necessary. You always label
<nigel> .. a specific script with something else like "pre-recording script". The categorisation doesn't work for me,
<nigel> .. language-wise.
<nigel> Cyril: Trying to see how to address your concern.
<nigel> .. One way is to remove the paragraph and just call everything a script?
<nigel> Andreas: Yes that would work for me
<nigel> Cyril: Or if we change DAPT Script to something else that doesn't use the word "Script" would that resolve it?
<nigel> Andreas: I'm not sure if "DAPT Script" is the only use of "script" to make both.
<nigel> Cyril: The first document you can produce is a transcript.
<MattS> q+
<nigel> .. Start by transcribing the original language, for dubbing.
<nigel> .. Then by adjusting and translating the transcript you produce the dub script.
<nigel> Andreas: Ok
<nigel> Cyril: I actually like the text, it's clear what is a transcript and a script. I can understand that
<nigel> .. "DAPT Script" being possibly a transcript could be confusing. That's why I was asking if changing that
<nigel> .. term could be less confusing.
<nigel> ack MattS
<nigel> MattS: From a linguistic point of view you can only ever transcribe something that already exists.
<nigel> .. You could end up with a script that is a transcript. You're unlikely to need a transcript of audio description,
<nigel> .. with the workflow you would try not to be in a scenario where you have no script for audio description.
<nigel> .. I can see the confusion but to my mind the origination of a transcript is always very clear.
<atai> q+
<nigel> .. A script is forward looking, a transcript is backward looking.
<nigel> ack at
<nigel> Andreas: That was a comment I made long ago. By reading through it and making sense of it
<nigel> .. without being an expert in the domain of localisation. If there's a clear understanding of this
<nigel> .. differentiation then there may not be an issue. I just wanted to make sure that this is clear to others.
<nigel> .. If it's used this way in localisation it should be kept this way.
<nigel> MattS: I definitely think they are not used interchangeable. But "script" has a broader range of meanings
<nigel> .. than "transcript".
<nigel> Andreas: Would you say a "transcript" is not a "script"?
<nigel> MattS: I would say a "transcript" is a kind of "script".
<nigel> .. From a workflow point of view a script is forward looking, but linguistically a transcript is a
<nigel> .. form of script.
<nigel> Cyril: How do we resolve this issue?
<nigel> .. Is modifying the first paragraph to say that a transcript is a special type of script - would that help?
<nigel> Andreas: That would be clearer to me at least, but then you have to rewrite the whole paragraph.
<nigel> .. Currently they seem to be mutually exclusive.
<nigel> Nigel: Ok, I think I can do that.
<nigel> SUMMARY: Reword §2.1 para 1 to allow for "script" to include "transcript" as a special case.