Experimental translation to Estonian

[boamaod]

It is quite normal translation except for the term "open definition" itself — which is experimentally translated as "open* definition", where "∗" means wildcard for whatever is specified by the adjective "open" and also endnote referred by the same asterisk "∗" explaining that in Estonian neither "avatud definitsioon" (open[ed] definition) nor "avatuse definitsioon" (definition of openness) makes totally sense. Another option would be to translate it as "avatu definitsioon" (definition of an opened), but I believe possible options can be discussed and easily implemented with a pull request later, if we have clear idea why we choose one or another solution.

[mlinksva]

Thanks for this! 3 things:

• I'm happy to just merge this translation for now, but if you'd like to get other Estonian speakers to give you feedback first I'm happy to wait. Let me know.
• I believe there's been at least one previous translation where "Open Knowledge Definition" was more straightforward/less ambiguous to translate than "Open Definition". If that's the case with Estonian, I think it would be acceptable for the name to be a translation of Open Knowledge Definition.
• This seems to be based on 2.0. 2.1 is the current version. If you feel like updating before this is merged, feel free to do so, but don't feel obligated to do so. The 2.0->2.1 English diff and announcement are linked at http://opendefinition.org/history/

[boamaod]

I invited some people on open source channels to give comments here, but I'm not sure if anyone is that interested. By the way, @mlinksva, do you know where I could find some discussions/articles about why "open knowledge definition" was changed to "open definition" in the first place? I'm thinking of leaving 2.0 as it is and translating 2.1 without experimental features.

[gynter]

About the topic, I personally think that translating Open Knowledge Definition as Avatud teadmuse definitsioon is better, because it's more precise and doesn't leave a lot of room for personal interpretation (which a definition should never be allowed to to, it should be precise). With Avatud* definitsioon one could always raise a question Avatud mis? (Open what?).

Some notes:

• I'd avoid using word teadmine and it's forms and instead would use teadmus everywhere in text (teadmiste/teadmusega :arrow_right: teadmusega);
• I also think that lollikindlat ühisvara is not a good phrasing. Can't suggest a better one at the moment, but hopefully I can think of something :)

I'll update the list, if I get more free time to compare the English and Estonian versions.

Some technicalities:

• Please squash commits;
• Please follow the seven suggestions of commiting, both of those makes things easier to follow;
• If possible (and allowed by the project), then please wrap lines to 72 characters, easier to read as plain text.

[mlinksva]

@boamaod https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000427.html and https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000445.html ... personally I favored Open Knowledge Definition but was outvoted. That's done so we move ahead ... I think accommodating languages for which leaving out Knowledge makes for a more ambiguous statement than Open Definition does in (relatively flexible, I guess, says me an embarrassed monoglot) English it is fine to to translate as "Open Knowledge Definition".

I suppose we should make this an official translation policy, or not (reject it). I'll raise it on https://discuss.okfn.org/c/projects/OpenDefinition when I get I chance later today or this weekend.

@gynter thanks for the additional input. I'll wait to see if @boamaod wants to take any of your suggestions and update the pull request before I merge. For what it's worth, I don't particularly care about squashing commits in this project, especially for translations. I don't expect translators to become git experts to contribute. :smile:

[boamaod]

I pushed in the first iteration to translate 2.1, I'd leave 2.0 intact, since it's already history.

As @gynter suggested I changed "lollikindel" to "töökindel" (that is "foolproof" to "workproof", there might be better options) and opted for "teadmus" everywhere instead of occasional "teadmine" which I previously used to give the text a bit more colloquial touch instead of full-on legalism. For the name of definition itself I used "avatud teadmuse definitsioon" which mimics "open knowledge definition".

If we find a legal expert who could proofread the text, this would take it to next level I suppose, but generally it should be readable/understandable.

[mlinksva]

Thanks @boamaod, merged!