Translate rholang-spec-0.2.pdf to French

[BelovedAquila]

Issue

Original (English) Content

• rholang-spec-0.2-pdf

Translated (French) Content

• rholang-spec-0.2_FR.pdf

Tasks

• [x] Download the original (English) content.
• [x] Translate the content.
• [x] Check the spelling.
• [x] Review each other's work.
• [x] Have them reviewed by others with knowledge of English and French.
• [x] Upload the PDF file to Google drive here.

  Collaborators

• @BelovedAquila
• @Pionelle

• @philipandri002

For all issues

[Keep italic labels, replace brackets with answer]

Describe how the building and implementation of this task will benefit the RChain Membership or the RChain blockchain:

More people reading the blog posts in other languages means good marketing.

Estimated Budget of Task: $2000 \ Estimated Timeline Required to Complete the Task: 10 days \ Measure of Completion: 100%

-- \ Legal \ Task Submitter shall not submit Tasks that will involve RHOC being transacted in any manner that (i) jeopardizes RHOC’s status as a software access token or other relevant and applicable description of the RHOC as an “asset”—not a security— or (2) violates, in any manner, applicable U.S. Securities laws.

For Translators

• Why this document?
  • It's important to translate because ____
  • [ ] It's an RChain blog item
  • [x] It's on https://developer.rchain.coop/ that has been endorsed for translation by @Jake-Gillberg, @MParlikar, or @KellyAtPyrofex
• How can people who do not speak this language be assured of the quality of the translation? (all are required)
  • [x] several reviewers are involved (assign the ticket to them)
  • [x] at least two of them have high proficiency in (the target language)
  • [x] at least two of them have high proficiency in English
  • [x] at least two of them have either
    • [x] significant reputation (e.g. a diploma) at stake; source: Diploma
    • [ ] a track record of quality work on rchain bounties: #464 #623 #653
• What about maintenance? (choose one)
  • [x] the source document is stable; further translation work is not expected
  • [ ] our plan to keep the translation up to date is: ____to

[Pionelle]

Bon travail fait jusqu'ici les gars!

[BelovedAquila]

Oui, Nous allons le télécharger sur le disque Google bientôt, Après le dernier revue

[truffard]

@BelovedAquila @Pionelle les filles, je n'ai toujours pas accés au document....

[BelovedAquila]

@truffard Vérifiez à nouveau s'il vous plaît

[dckc]

I see the whole $3000 budget was claimed, but I'm struggling to find the results from https://developer.rchain.coop/ or even https://github.com/rchain/rchain/tree/master/docs/rholang . Oh... the issue description says the target is gdrive. I don't see how that's valuable -- how does the audience find it? Translations should appear right next to the originals, no? And the target isn't even published (it wants me to ask for access).

This issue wasn't even posted until May 2. Why was the bounty claimed in the April pay period?

0.2 is already obsolete; I see an 0.3 in https://github.com/rchain/rchain/tree/master/docs/rholang . Did you coordinate with the authors? Do they want a French translation? (I suppose French scored reasonably high in the poll summarized Apr 17 by @kitblake in #483 ...)

cc @ICA3DaR5, @zero-andreou, @michaelizer,

[truffard]

@Pionelle @BelovedAquila @dckc I made so many corrections on the document ....They' re not reflected and none of the comments I made show up... Where are they? The document, as it is, is incomprehensible and doesn't make any sense

 

[kitblake]

@BelovedAquila You deleted this comment from @truffard:

@BelovedAquila il y a beaucoup de corrections à faire, j'ai commencé... @Pionelle es tu la?

Pourquoi ?

[truffard]

@kitblake @dckc apparently one can claim a bounty even if the job is incomplete.The document is a gibberish of french

[dckc]

@truffard as noted in #682, in collaboration with some others, I moved the votes on this issue to May so that the negotiation isn't rushed.

[truffard]

@dckc as you mentioned earlier 0.2 is obsolete. I unassigned myself from the issue

[ghost]

@truffard @dckc Is there a rholang-spec-0.3 somewhere? Can't find it on the developers website.

[dckc]

As I noted above, "I see an 0.3 in https://github.com/rchain/rchain/tree/master/docs/rholang . "

[BelovedAquila]

@kitblake and @dckc the first doc uploaded was messed up, so had to upload a fresh copy. And I am reworking on the doc to make the corrections stated where necessary, after which it will still be reviewed. @truffard you have your special reasons for your exaggerated fallacious conclusion, which I am still going to consider . Thank you

[truffard]

@BelovedAquila i did help you for this document but you won't mention that, and according to @lapin7 one must be a native speaker in order to collaborate on a translation project

[dckc]

I don't see that " at least two of them have high proficiency in (the target language)" especially since @truffard has bowed out.

For that reason and others above, I put in slashing votes on this issue.

[BelovedAquila]

@truffard your contribution is regarded and I agree with the new term pointed out by lapin but I suppose logically it applies to subsequent translations, which I have quite noted. Even though one mustn't be a native of a language to be fluent in that language.

@dckc I think you can't actually ascertain that until the doc is completed,so slashing the votes already is like placing judgments before considering evidences, don't you think so?

[dckc]

No, I don't think so.

On Thu, May 17, 2018, 1:24 PM BelovedAquila notifications@github.com wrote:

@truffard https://github.com/truffard your contribution is regarded and I agree with the new term pointed out by lapin but I suppose logically it applies to subsequent translations, which I have quite noted. Even though one mustn't be a native of a language to be fluent in that language. @dckc https://github.com/dckc I think you can't actually ascertain that until the doc is completed,so slashing the votes already is like placing judgments before considering evidences, don't you think so?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rchain/bounties/issues/653#issuecomment-389962745, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJNyiMG8ihbgB0hCBMo0sFdwBrU_z4Lks5tzcBOgaJpZM4TvvYY .

[BelovedAquila]

@dckc that would make your presumption or judgment unstable or bias, that's if what we seek to achieve via the translation project is more of accuracy or proficiency than regionalism.

[dckc]

... you can't actually ascertain that until the doc is completed so slashing the votes already is like placing judgments before considering evidences, don't you think so?

It's not complete by your own estimation and yet you claim 90% of a $3000 budget:

201805	BelovedAquila	BelovedAquila: BelovedAquila	90		Tue May 8 11:21:59 2018

That's plenty of evidence.

If you want me to withdraw my slashing vote, don't defend your clearly unfair position; change your votes and address the questions and criticism above.

[BelovedAquila]

@dckc yes because we have to revisit the said errors and scrutinize the whole document again, more reasons why you ought not place judgment on the doc already, till its completed. I find it wrong for you to term my position as unfair,that would be quick and on no vital basis,because I think you know little or nothing as to the work done on it. And I don't see any question I haven't answered.

@ICA3DaR5 never mind, it would be resolved once we are done. Thank you

[ghost]

I am closing this issue, it has been slashed already.

[BelovedAquila]

This issue is still valid, as there isn't any justified reason to it being slashed and even closed when work is still ongoing on it

[ghost]

Alright, keep it open.

[BelovedAquila]

The Reviewed document of this issue has just been uploaded and its open to criticism and further independent reviews.

[ghost]

@dckc Do you have any insight on this issue?

[dckc]

No more than I already said.

On Sat, May 26, 2018, 3:21 PM Donald A. Iljazi notifications@github.com wrote:

@dckc https://github.com/dckc Do you have any insight on this issue?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rchain/bounties/issues/653#issuecomment-392285880, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJNynEEKR_tfKEucZorb2XlbkX4JzVWks5t2bk6gaJpZM4TvvYY .

[BelovedAquila]

@dckc what else haven't been addressed here please? Why does it seem like you are shying away from pointing out? You don't judge something you know nothing about that way,I know my efforts on this issue and am willing to defend it, so make your point.

[ghost]

If you want me to withdraw my slashing vote, don't defend your clearly unfair position; change your votes and address the questions and criticism above.

[BelovedAquila]

Ok, thank you @ICA3DaR5 what is yet to be done is changing my vote,which aspects of the vote needed to be changed and to what? am open to fair suggestions please @dckc @kitblake

[allancto]

@BelovedAquila thanks for your comments. My understanding is that there was a translation done which was assessed by @truffard @ICA3DaR5 and @dckc as not an adequate within our ability to measure, and will not be eligible for reward. I'm not an expert in French translation, but @ICA3DaR5 is trusted by me and by the voting system to make this determination.

Are there other issues you might be interested in participating in?

[BelovedAquila]

@allancto thank you very much, I will not want to raise more issues on this, but I will have my doc on this issue reviewed by other French collaborators on the basis of an independent review, @truffard alone isn't sufficient to determine the adequacy of the translated doc on this issue, @ICA3DaR5 and @dckc aren't French fluent either, so please I would have it reviewed by an independent reviewer so as to ascertain how true the propositions are please.

[truffard]

@BelovedAquila you say I alone am not sufficient to determine the adequacy of the translated doc. I think I'm sufficient to assess your insufficient level of French.

[Jake-Gillberg]

This document is now out of date

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:57 PM, truffard notifications@github.com wrote:

@BelovedAquila https://github.com/BelovedAquila you say I alone am not enough to determine the adequacy of the translated doc. I think I'm sufficient to assess your insufficient level of French.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rchain/bounties/issues/653#issuecomment-394857525, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEg4RiMz97OV0YHgdx0e102QvWOtSA2Bks5t5vCugaJpZM4TvvYY .

[Pionelle]

@truffard There are francophone countries apart from in Europe. Where the language is the first language and method of education. If certain aspects of translation do not sit well with you, as a native speaker, I understand. But it does not change the genuineness of other french speaking non-natives. We all were going about making things work, having a combative attitude towards the work is okay. But towards the make up of the persons involved is not fair. Ivory Coast (Been here) Dahomey (currently Benin) French Sudan (currently Mali) Guinea. Mauritania. Niger. Senegal. Upper Volta (currently Burkina Faso) Are francophone. We have visited these countries and communicating in the french language gives us the confidence to make attempts. We may not be perfect, but a true cooperative spirit is one that comes to our aid and helps out to ensure the aim is met. Maybe out of goodwill and due process, but using terms that reduce the efforts affect morale and kill our love for the work.

[Pionelle]

@dckc On the with-holding all of my rewards based on irregularities on this. I find that a bit unfair, but if it is the rule. It must stand then, shouldnt it? I only found of this today and I was left confused since the other works were unrelated to this. But then you mention what had to be done. But it still came to me as a surprise that I had to be punished even for the good works I had done in other areas of RChain.

[BelovedAquila]

@truffard your past proposition on the basis of your collaboration as a reviewer on this issue, in collaborative agreement with and to the fulfillment of the translation requirements, was resultant to the doc not being closely reviewed, since it is to be passed to you as a second reviewer. under such circumstance and collaborative position it is unlikely that some errors won't be found.you having been made a reviewer to the doc, and having reviewed a page and found some errors, which you happen to stand upon as a basis to term the doc inadequate is what I consider illogical,a page review enough to disqualify a doc?. Your non compliance to your collaborative role of reviewing the whole doc (not just a page) based on agreement, is what is being used as a basis of your exaggerated conclusion on the doc? Isn't that shallow?you are even insisting on such shallowness. You demanding half the reward on this issue isn't enough to appeal to your conscience, but posing a painted blackmail against one's personality and honest work was more appealing. Atlas the doc was reworked on and closer review done, so your past proposition on it can no longer hold water. Yes, the revised doc is opened to your review even after having backed out of it, but your conclusion on the adequacy or inadequacy of the doc can no longer be trusted. On these basis I inferred that the doc be proofed by other French collaborators. RChain as I have known stands for equity, inasmuch as equity is being despised, yet equity must be done.

@Jake-Gillberg this issue had been on going before then.

[dckc]

Since @BelovedAquila removed that May 8 vote, I removed my slashing vote. Likewise with @Pionelle .

Stay tuned to reward votes on this issue for slashing status.

[BelovedAquila]

@dckc thank you very much, I appreciate. I appreciate your efforts in seeing things go well in the ways you can, the issues which ensued here wasn't pre-planned , and I haven't really been on the best side with my reaction to it, one thing led to another,all of which I am very sorry, for any disregarding statement made by me in the course of getting an understanding, I am sorry. In whatever way it might have affected the coop in general negatively, I render my apologies, and I would see to it that subsequent collaborations doesn't give any rise to the questioning of my integrity and that of the issues worked on. @dckc I am sorry for the ways I posed disrespect or disregard of you, you are appreciated and your efforts are,please Pardon. Thank you

[dckc]

OK, now that we're back to a civil exchange, let's review:

• Translation check-list: "several reviewers are involved (assign the ticket to them)" yet only 1 person is assigned since @truffard stepped aside May 11.
  • Perhaps that's an administrative detail and Pionelle is a second reviewer, but
  • I don't see an answer to kitblake's May 9 question about why you deleted the comment from @truffard
• 0.2 is already obsolete and yet the checklist atop this issue says the source document is stable
• This issue wasn't even posted until May 2. Why was the bounty claimed in the April pay period?
• how does the audience find it? I don't see an answer to my question from May 9.
• Did you coordinate with the authors? Do they want a French translation?
  • A typical way to coordinate with the authors, as well as get the document in a place where the audience can find it, now that the tutorial is maintained in github, is to submit a pull request. For example: https://github.com/rchain/rchain/pull/867 for a German translation. Note how that pull request is still outstanding, meaning it's not clear that the authors want a German translation. And the norm is that one does not claim a reward until a pull request is accepted ("merged"). (I discussed this with Medha during work on #273, but it seems we didn't write it down explicitly.)
• "source: Diploma" diploma in what? from what institution? (This clarification to the translation checklist was discussed in a recent RAM meeting. I changed ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md 4 days ago.)

[dckc]

@Jake-Gillberg , I realized in conversation with @ICA3DaR5 that there's still a https://developer.rchain.coop/ > RHOLANG SPECIFICATION > https://developer.rchain.coop/assets/rholang-spec-0.2.pdf link.

The tutorial has moved on from 0.2, but I guess the spec has not.

The question of maintenance going forward remains.

[Jake-Gillberg]

From talking with Mike Stay about this document I got the quote: "...The document ... is only of historical value; it has too much philosophizing and not enough detail about semantics for a proper language specification. We have a contractor working on a formal operational semantics for Rholang using K framework. We'll add commentary to it, but the majority of the new document will be generated from the K code."

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Dan Connolly notifications@github.com wrote:

@Jake-Gillberg https://github.com/Jake-Gillberg , I realized in conversation with @ICA3DaR5 https://github.com/ICA3DaR5 that there's still a https://developer.rchain.coop/ > RHOLANG SPECIFICATION > https://developer.rchain.coop/assets/rholang-spec-0.2.pdf link.

The tutorial has moved on from 0.2, but I guess the spec has not.

The question of maintenance going forward remains.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rchain/bounties/issues/653#issuecomment-395764204, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEg4RgGm3aJq713zk_pNzC9lYQlBmJ4fks5t6n8HgaJpZM4TvvYY .

[Jake-Gillberg]

If it is still linked on developer.rchain.coop then I guess I could see a case for translation? Though I wouldn't advocate for it ¯_(ツ)_/¯

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Jake Gillberg jake.gillberg@gmail.com wrote:

From talking with Mike Stay about this document I got the quote: "...The document ... is only of historical value; it has too much philosophizing and not enough detail about semantics for a proper language specification. We have a contractor working on a formal operational semantics for Rholang using K framework. We'll add commentary to it, but the majority of the new document will be generated from the K code."

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Dan Connolly notifications@github.com wrote:

@Jake-Gillberg https://github.com/Jake-Gillberg , I realized in conversation with @ICA3DaR5 https://github.com/ICA3DaR5 that there's still a https://developer.rchain.coop/ > RHOLANG SPECIFICATION > https://developer.rchain.coop/assets/rholang-spec-0.2.pdf link.

The tutorial has moved on from 0.2, but I guess the spec has not.

The question of maintenance going forward remains.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rchain/bounties/issues/653#issuecomment-395764204, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEg4RgGm3aJq713zk_pNzC9lYQlBmJ4fks5t6n8HgaJpZM4TvvYY .

[BelovedAquila]

@dckc

• would assign the ticket soon
• I made a mistake ignorantly in deleting truffard's comment, never saw it as wrong then, and it was deleted because I perceived the comment as regards to the reviewing, its not to be there, and we under a collaborative agreement, agreed on not filling the Github issue with comments with the aim of making it smart, we agreed on having an in house contributions or comments as regards to any point that's to be made about the issue,rather we should concentrate on making an effective doc and posting it.so finding that comment, I deleted it perceiving it wasn't supposed to be there as agreed and he might not have understood. Never knew its wrong.
• the check list on the document I supposed had been there before it became obsolete.
• yes actually the issue wasn't created till may 2,but I started working on it early week of April with the intention of getting it done with in April, but resulting from the delays of finding github French collaborators to review and meet the translation requirements on the issue, it took till may 2 to open it .and realizing the budget sheet for April was still open by then, I decided on the budget placements.
• I actually followed other issues with hope that the target area placed was gdrive, felt that was where it was to be submitted, but would have placed it in the actual target if I knew where else. And I tender my apologies as having not realized the access wasn't opened.
• I actually never came across all of that, safe when I heard @ICA3DaR5 mention something about pull request which I intended looking to, knowing about and returning a response feedback. I still don't really understand the pull request yet, I wish to be enlighten more so I could respond.
• The B.A in French from Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Delf certificate Ministry of National Education France

[dckc]

... something about pull request ...

That applies more to the rholang tutorial. I have been getting the tutorial confused with the spec. The spec is not maintained in github.

I think the source form of the spec is a google doc... well, that's even older: Rholang Spec (0.1): 2016-08-03 cited from rchain/reference.

In any case... for the benefit of future collaborators, in addition to .pdf, would you please share your work in editable form? (google doc link, .docx, .rtf, etc.)

I actually followed other issues with hope that the target area placed was gdrive ...

Typically, the target is right next to the original. This is another reason to coordinate with the authors: to ensure that the translation is available alongside the original. These days, it looks like the main place the 0.2 spec is featured is developer.rchain.coop. @KellyAtPyrofex do you know how documentation links from developer.rchain.coop are managed? Would you like to have a french version there?

Another possibility to reach the audience would be some existing place that's popular for francophones to get RChain news. Even a blog.

As to the rest... it looks like you have answered the outstanding questions. Thanks.

[BelovedAquila]

Alright, thank you very much.

In any case... for the benefit of future collaborators, in addition to .pdf, would you please share your work in editable form? (google doc link, .docx, .rtf, etc.)<

Alright, will do that.

[BelovedAquila]

Issue completed. Please translation guides your attention are needed @ICA3DaR5 @michaelizer @zero-andreou

[ghost]

@BelovedAquila You consider this completed and worthy of $3000?

Examples of poorly written content:

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

...and more.

[truffard]

Finally you begin to understand when I said that those "translators" have a very basic command of the french language. Whats up with the sugar (sucre) above in §3 ? Pretty funny though.

[BelovedAquila]

@ICA3DaR5 are you underestimating the doc as poorly written on the basis that we followed the way it was written in the original doc? I will adjust the budget. @truffard aside from the fact that you are ok with ad hominem contrary to norm and good at hasty exaggerated conclusions, you made same good observation which I did, just that you are asking a right question to the wrong person, that question I supposed should go to the authors of original doc. Yeah, right?

[truffard]

You re funny, keep coming !