Re: The scope of Unicode (from Re: How can my research become implemented in a standardized manner?)

Rick McGowan referred to Google Translate.
I have been referred to Google Translate previously and I replied.
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2011-m01/0112.html
I thought about what Rick wrote yet the problem is the matter of provenance of the translation.
The clinician could not be sure of the provenance of the translation, even if, in fact, the translation were perfect, which it might be.
Whereas with the preset sentences, previously translated manually by a native speaker at the request of the National Standards Body of the country where the language is spoken, the provenance of the translation would be part of the system.
I have used Google Translate on many occasions, mostly for translation into English just to try to gain an understanding of some text written in a language other than English.
Another issue is that Google Translate requires at-the-time access to a remote server, whereas what I am suggesting would not require at-the-time access to a remote server: perhaps sometimes needing access to a remote server to update sentence lists.
William Overington
24 October 2015
Received on Sat Oct 24 2015 - 12:26:52 CDT