This document specifies principles, methods, and best practices for multilingual terminology management across organizations and domains. It provides a standardized approach to the creation, collection, storage, processing, and dissemination of terminology resources in multiple languages and across different linguistic communities.
© 2025 Enosema Foundation.
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from the Enosema Foundation.
Enosema Foundation
2885 Sanford Ave Sw Suite 32361
Grandville MI 49418-1342
USA
E-mail: info@enosema.org
Published in the USA
Making meaning meaningful
This document specifies principles, methods, and best practices for multilingual terminology management across organizations and domains. It provides a standardized approach to the creation, collection, storage, processing, and dissemination of terminology resources in multiple languages and across different linguistic communities.
The Enosema Foundation (“ES”) is the premier non-profit standardization organization for terminology standardization and terminology related processes such as management. It facilitates the education, standardization, research, promotion, definition, and usage of terminology resources and management practices globally.
ES works with international partners and experts across the globe, reflecting the international nature of its mission. More information about ES is available on the official website ().
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are described in the ES Directives.
In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the different types of ES documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the editorial rules of the ES Directives.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. ES shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be provided in the Introduction.
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not constitute an endorsement.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee Terminology.
In our increasingly globalized world, effective communication across language boundaries has become essential for organizations, industries, and communities. Multilingual terminology management addresses the complex challenge of ensuring consistent, accurate, and culturally appropriate terminology across multiple languages and locales.
While the fundamental principles of terminology management apply across all contexts, multilingual environments introduce additional layers of complexity. These include cultural and linguistic differences, varying conceptual systems, challenges in establishing equivalence between terms, and the need to determine authoritative versus informative language versions.
Several international standards provide guidance for aspects of multilingual terminology work, including ISO 704 (Terminology work — Principles and methods), ISO 30042 (Management of terminology resources — TermBase eXchange (TBX)), ISO 10241-1 and ISO 10241-2 (Terminological entries in standards), and ISO 17100 (Translation services). However, organizations often struggle with implementing comprehensive multilingual terminology management due to the complexity of coordinating terminology across languages, cultures, and regions.
The challenges of multilingual terminology management include:
Establishing conceptual equivalence across languages with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds
Determining which language versions are authoritative and which are informative
Adapting terminology to specific locales while maintaining conceptual integrity
Managing the evolution of terminology across multiple languages simultaneously
Coordinating terminology work among diverse stakeholders with different linguistic expertise
Implementing technical solutions that support multiple languages, scripts, and directionality
This document addresses these challenges by providing comprehensive guidelines for multilingual terminology management based on established international standards and best practices. It outlines principles, cultural considerations, authority determination, equivalence management, workflow processes, and technical implementation requirements necessary for effective multilingual terminology management.
The guidelines presented in this document are designed to help organizations:
Establish consistent terminology across multiple languages
Implement efficient multilingual terminology management processes
Determine and document authoritative and informative language versions
Adapt terminology appropriately for different cultural contexts
Build and maintain multilingual terminology resources that meet international standards
Improve the clarity and quality of multilingual content
Reduce translation and localization costs
Facilitate knowledge transfer and communication across language boundaries
By following these guidelines, organizations can improve the consistency and quality of their multilingual communications, enhance their global content strategy, reduce costs, and better serve their diverse audiences worldwide.
This standard builds upon the significant contributions of terminology and localization experts worldwide and the foundational work established in ISO standards. The Enosema Foundation recognizes the critical importance of multilingual terminology management in facilitating mutual understanding across languages and cultures.
This document specifies principles, methods, and best practices for multilingual terminology management across organizations and domains. It provides a standardized approach to the creation, collection, storage, processing, and dissemination of terminology resources in multiple languages and across different cultural contexts.
The guidelines specified in this document apply to all multilingual terminology management activities, regardless of the subject field, industry, organization size, or languages involved. The standardized approaches enhance terminology consistency across languages, improve communication clarity in multilingual environments, and ensure compliance with international terminology standards.
This document provides practical guidance for implementing effective multilingual terminology management processes based on established international standards, including ISO 704, ISO 30042, ISO 10241-1, ISO 10241-2, and ISO 17100, with examples illustrating the application of these principles in various multilingual contexts.
This document specifically addresses:
Principles for managing terminology across multiple languages
Cultural and regional considerations in multilingual terminology
Determination and documentation of authoritative and informative language versions
Equivalence management across languages with different conceptual systems
Multilingual terminology workflows and collaboration processes
Technical implementation of multilingual terminology resources
This document is intended for:
Terminology managers and terminologists responsible for developing and maintaining multilingual terminology resources
Translators and localizers who work with specialized terminology across languages
Content creators and technical writers producing content for multilingual audiences
Standards developers working in multilingual environments
Subject matter experts contributing to terminology resources in their native languages
Translation and localization project managers
Language service providers
International organizations managing multilingual documentation
Software developers creating tools for multilingual terminology management
The guidelines specified here complement the principles and methods described in ISO 704, the data exchange formats defined in ISO 30042, the rules for terminological entries established in ISO 10241-1 and ISO 10241-2, and the translation service requirements in ISO 17100.
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminology databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
ISO Online browsing platform: available at
IEC Electropedia: available at
set of designations belonging to one special language
verbal designation of a general concept in a specific subject field
management of terminology resources across multiple languages through the systematic collection, description, processing, and presentation of concepts and their designations
unit of knowledge created by a unique combination of characteristics
language version of a terminological entry that serves as the reference for creating or validating other language versions
language version of a terminological entry derived from or validated against an authoritative language version
language from which a term or text is translated
language into which a term or text is translated
set of parameters that defines the user’s language, region and any special variant preferences that the user wants to see in their user interface
adaptation of a product, service, or content to meet the language, cultural, and other requirements of a specific target market
process of designing a product so that it can be adapted to various languages and regions without engineering changes
process of adapting content to the cultural expectations, norms, and preferences of a target audience
relationship between designations in different languages representing the same concept
relationship between designations in different languages that represent identical concepts
relationship between designations in different languages that represent similar but not identical concepts
absence of a designation in a target language for a concept that exists in a source language
absence of a direct term equivalent in a target language for a concept in the source language
newly coined term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use but has not yet been fully accepted
term adopted from another language with or without modification
word or phrase borrowed from another language by literal, word-for-word or root-for-root translation
code that represents the name of a language
code that represents the name of a script
text containing text in both right-to-left and left-to-right writing directions
variety of language used for a particular purpose or in a particular social setting
activity leading to the selection of terms and the assignment of concepts to terms in different languages to ensure equivalence of concepts and consistency of terms
Multilingual terminology management is founded on a set of core principles that extend the fundamental principles of terminology work to address the specific challenges of working across multiple languages and cultures. These principles ensure that multilingual terminology work is systematic, consistent, and of high quality, serving the needs of all stakeholders regardless of their language or cultural background.
The principles outlined in this section build upon the fundamental principles of terminology work established in
Multilingual terminology management shall be based on concepts rather than terms, with the understanding that concepts may have different boundaries and characteristics in different languages and cultures.
This principle dictates that:
Concepts should be clearly defined before terms are assigned in any language
Each concept should be placed within its appropriate concept system, which may vary across cultures
Relationships between concepts should be explicitly documented, noting any cultural variations
One concept should correspond to one multilingual terminological entry, even when conceptual boundaries differ across languages
The English concept of “privacy” does not have exact equivalents in many languages. A concept-based approach would document the English concept with its specific characteristics, then document the partial equivalents in other languages (such as “vie privée” in French or “プライバシー” in Japanese) with notes explaining the conceptual differences.
Multilingual terminology management shall respect and account for cultural differences in conceptual systems, linguistic structures, and communication practices.
This principle requires:
Recognition that concepts may be culture-specific or have different characteristics in different cultures
Awareness of cultural taboos, sensitivities, and preferences in term selection
Consideration of cultural context in definitions and examples
Appropriate adaptation of concepts and terms for different cultural audiences while maintaining conceptual integrity
The concept of “family” varies significantly across cultures. In some cultures, it refers primarily to the nuclear family, while in others it encompasses extended family members. Multilingual terminology management would document these cultural variations in the concept description.
All languages in a multilingual terminology resource shall be treated with equal respect and consideration, regardless of their status as authoritative or informative.
This principle emphasizes:
Equal attention to quality and accuracy across all language versions
Appropriate representation of all languages in the terminology development process
Recognition that each language has unique characteristics that must be respected
Avoidance of linguistic imperialism or the imposition of structures from one language onto another
The status of each language version as authoritative or informative shall be clearly documented and transparent to all users.
This principle involves:
Explicit documentation of which language versions are authoritative
Clear criteria for determining authoritative status
Transparent processes for creating and validating informative versions
Documentation of the relationship between authoritative and informative versions
A terminological entry might indicate:
term: artificial intelligence en: artificial intelligence [AUTHORITATIVE] fr: intelligence artificielle [INFORMATIVE] de: künstliche Intelligenz [INFORMATIVE] ja: 人工知能 [AUTHORITATIVE]
With a note explaining that both English and Japanese versions were developed by subject matter experts in the original concept development and serve as authoritative references for other language versions.
The degree of equivalence between terms in different languages shall be explicitly documented and managed.
This principle requires:
Assessment and documentation of the type of equivalence (full, partial, zero)
Strategies for handling partial and zero equivalence
Clear indication of conceptual differences across languages
Appropriate handling of culture-specific concepts
Multilingual terminology shall be developed through collaboration among experts with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
This principle emphasizes:
Involvement of native speakers and subject matter experts for each language
Collaborative processes for resolving conceptual and terminological differences
Cross-cultural communication and negotiation
Balanced representation of different language communities
Each language version shall maintain internal consistency in terminology use, style, and format.
This principle involves:
Consistent application of terminological principles within each language
Adherence to language-specific conventions and standards
Consistent formatting and presentation within each language
Regular review and harmonization within each language version
Multilingual terminology management shall accommodate the different rates and patterns of language evolution across languages.
This principle requires:
Recognition that languages evolve at different rates and in different ways
Processes for updating terminology to reflect language changes
Documentation of obsolete or changing terms
Flexibility to accommodate neologisms and evolving usage
Multilingual terminology resources shall be technically accessible to users of all included languages.
This principle involves:
Support for all required scripts and character sets
Appropriate handling of bidirectional text
Consideration of sorting and search requirements for different languages
Accessibility features that work across languages
Localization and cultural adaptation are essential aspects of multilingual terminology management that go beyond simple translation. They involve adapting terminology to specific cultural contexts while maintaining conceptual integrity and ensuring that terms are appropriate and effective for their target audiences.
This section outlines approaches and strategies for localizing terminology and adapting it to different cultural contexts, in accordance with the principles described in the previous section and the requirements for multilingual terminology resources.
Localization is a broader process than translation, encompassing cultural, technical, and contextual adaptations beyond linguistic conversion.
In terminology management:
Translation focuses on finding linguistic equivalents for terms
Localization considers cultural appropriateness, usage contexts, and user expectations
Translation may be a component of localization, but localization includes additional adaptations
The English term “cloud computing” could be translated literally into many languages, but proper localization would consider:
Whether the metaphor of “cloud” makes sense in the target culture
If there are existing terms already in use in the target locale
Whether technical experts in the target locale use an English borrowing or a native term
Any cultural associations or connotations that might affect understanding
Terminology localization may involve adapting various parameters:
Linguistic parameters (grammar, syntax, orthography)
Cultural parameters (metaphors, idioms, examples)
Technical parameters (formats, units of measurement, notation systems)
Legal parameters (regulated terminology, compliance requirements)
Market-specific parameters (industry conventions, brand considerations)
Concepts exist within cultural contexts that influence their boundaries, characteristics, and relationships with other concepts.
When managing multilingual terminology:
Identify culture-specific aspects of concepts
Document cultural variations in concept understanding
Provide cultural context in definitions and examples
Recognize when concepts are culture-bound or culture-specific
The concept of “personal space” varies significantly across cultures. In a multilingual terminology resource, the entry might include:
en: personal space definition: The physical distance one prefers to maintain in social interactions. cultural note: In North American culture, personal space typically extends approximately 45-120 cm from the body in social situations.
ja: パーソナルスペース definition: 社会的な交流において維持したい物理的な距離。 cultural note: 日本文化では、パーソナルスペースの概念は存在するが、北米文化と比較して距離が短い傾向がある。
Term selection must consider cultural sensitivities, taboos, and preferences.
Guidelines for culturally sensitive term selection:
Avoid terms with negative connotations in the target culture
Consider historical and political sensitivities
Be aware of taboo subjects and terminology
Respect cultural preferences for native terms versus borrowings
Consider register and formality appropriate to the culture
Many languages have regional variants that must be considered in terminology management.
Approaches to handling regional variants:
Document regional usage patterns
Specify the region for each variant
Indicate preferred variants for specific markets
Provide usage notes for regional differences
Consider standardization needs versus regional identity
The concept of “mobile phone” has different terms in different English-speaking regions:
en-US: cell phone en-GB: mobile phone en-AU: mobile phone en-CA: cell phone, mobile phone
Each variant would be documented with its regional code and usage notes.
When concepts are specific to one culture but need to be represented in another, several strategies can be employed:
Borrowing the source term with explanatory notes
Creating a neologism in the target language
Using a descriptive phrase instead of a single term
Finding the closest partial equivalent with clarifying notes
Using a generalizing term with specific qualifiers
The Japanese concept of “おもてなし” (omotenashi) refers to a specific form of Japanese hospitality that doesn’t have a direct equivalent in many languages. Adaptation strategies might include:
Borrowing: “omotenashi” (with explanation)
Descriptive phrase: “Japanese wholehearted hospitality”
Partial equivalent: “hospitality (Japanese style)”
Generalizing term with qualifier: “anticipatory hospitality (Japanese concept)”
Examples and contexts should be adapted to be culturally relevant and meaningful.
Guidelines for adapting examples:
Replace culture-specific references with locally relevant ones
Adapt scenarios to reflect local practices and norms
Ensure examples are appropriate and not offensive in the target culture
Maintain the conceptual point while changing cultural specifics
Verify that adapted examples accurately represent the concept
Visual elements associated with terminology (icons, symbols, diagrams) may also require cultural adaptation.
Considerations for visual adaptation:
Color associations vary across cultures
Symbols may have different meanings or be taboo
Reading direction affects diagram layout
Gestures depicted may have different meanings
Cultural references in visuals may not be recognized
Internationalization is the process of designing terminology resources so they can be easily localized.
Key internationalization principles for terminology:
Separate content from presentation
Design for translation expansion/contraction
Support all required character sets and writing systems
Avoid culture-specific references in core definitions
Use culturally neutral examples where possible
Design for bidirectional text support
Terminology resources should be designed with future localization in mind.
Best practices include:
Document the cultural context of the original terminology
Provide context notes to aid future localizers
Maintain clear concept boundaries to facilitate equivalence assessment
Use internationally recognized standards for data categories
Document the rationale for term choices
Establish processes for cultural review and adaptation
Localized terminology should undergo cultural review by native speakers and subject matter experts.
The cultural review process should:
Verify cultural appropriateness of terms and definitions
Check for unintended connotations or associations
Ensure examples are relevant to the target culture
Confirm that register and style are appropriate
Identify any missing cultural context
Establish mechanisms for gathering user feedback on localized terminology.
Effective feedback mechanisms include:
Surveys of target language users
Community review processes
Usage monitoring and analysis
Consultation with local experts
Periodic review and update cycles
In multilingual terminology management, determining which language versions are authoritative and which are informative is a critical aspect of ensuring terminology quality and consistency. This section outlines approaches for establishing, documenting, and managing the authoritative status of language versions in multilingual terminology resources.
The guidelines in this section are designed to ensure transparency, clarity, and appropriate governance of multilingual terminology resources while respecting the principles of language equality and cultural sensitivity described in previous sections.
The determination of which language versions are authoritative should be based on clear criteria:
Origin of the concept (language in which the concept was originally developed)
Expertise availability (languages with available subject matter experts)
Legal or regulatory requirements (legally mandated authoritative languages)
Organizational policy (officially designated corporate languages)
User base (languages of primary user communities)
Quality assurance capabilities (languages with robust review processes)
Organizations shall document the criteria used for determining authoritative status and apply them consistently across their terminology resources.
An international standards organization might establish these criteria for authoritative language versions:
The language in which the standard was originally developed is authoritative
Languages that are official languages of the organization are authoritative
Languages for which there are dedicated technical committees with subject matter experts are authoritative
All other language versions are informative
In some cases, multiple language versions may be designated as authoritative. This approach is appropriate when:
The concept was developed collaboratively in multiple languages
The organization has multiple official languages
Legal requirements mandate multiple authoritative languages
Equal expertise is available in multiple languages
When multiple authoritative languages exist, organizations shall:
Clearly document all authoritative languages
Establish processes for resolving conflicts between authoritative versions
Ensure synchronization of updates across all authoritative versions
Maintain equal quality standards for all authoritative versions
The authoritative status of language versions may change over time due to:
Organizational changes
Expertise availability changes
Quality improvements in previously informative versions
Legal or regulatory changes
Strategic business decisions
When changing the authoritative status of language versions, organizations shall:
Document the rationale for the change
Establish a transition plan
Communicate the change to all stakeholders
Update all relevant documentation
Review and validate the newly authoritative versions
The status of each language version shall be explicitly marked in the terminology resource:
Use consistent markers for authoritative and informative status
Include status information in metadata
Make status visible to users
Include status in exported terminology data
Document the meaning of status markers
Example of explicit status marking:
concept ID: TM-0042 en: cloud computing [AUTHORITATIVE] definition: model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources
fr: informatique en nuage [INFORMATIVE] definition: modèle permettant un accès omniprésent, pratique et à la demande par le réseau à un pool partagé de ressources informatiques configurables
For each terminological entry with authoritative and informative language versions, the criteria used to determine authoritative status should be documented:
Include notes explaining why specific languages are authoritative
Document the expertise or sources used for authoritative versions
Provide context for understanding the relationship between versions
Include version history relevant to authoritative status
Document any special considerations for specific entries
When exchanging terminology data with other systems or organizations:
Include authoritative status information in exchange formats
Use standard TBX mechanisms for representing status (
Document how status is encoded in the exchange format
Verify that status information is preserved during import/export
Include relevant metadata about authority determination processes
Informative language versions shall be created through a structured translation workflow:
Source content selection from authoritative version(s)
Qualified translator selection with subject matter expertise
Translation with reference to authoritative version(s)
Review by subject matter experts
Validation against authoritative version(s)
Documentation of the relationship to authoritative version(s)
While informative versions are derived from authoritative versions, they still require rigorous quality assurance:
Verification of conceptual equivalence
Linguistic quality review
Cultural appropriateness assessment
Terminology consistency check
User acceptance testing
Regular review and updating
The process by which informative versions are derived from authoritative versions shall be documented:
Source authoritative version(s) used
Translation or adaptation methodology
Validation processes applied
Known limitations or challenges
Date of derivation and scheduled review
Responsible parties for the informative version
Potential conflicts between language versions may include:
Conceptual discrepancies
Contradictory definitions
Incompatible examples or contexts
Divergent concept relationships
Inconsistent usage guidance
Organizations shall establish processes for identifying such conflicts through:
Regular comparative reviews
User feedback mechanisms
Automated consistency checks
Cross-language validation
Expert review panels
When conflicts between language versions are identified:
Authoritative versions take precedence in case of conflicts
When multiple authoritative versions conflict, a documented resolution process shall be followed
Changes to resolve conflicts shall be documented
All stakeholders shall be informed of significant conflict resolutions
Root causes of conflicts shall be analyzed to prevent recurrence
To prevent conflicts and maintain alignment between language versions:
Synchronize update processes across languages
Establish clear communication channels between language teams
Document concept boundaries clearly to prevent drift
Conduct regular alignment reviews
Implement version control for all language versions
The designation of authoritative and informative language versions may have legal implications:
In legal disputes, authoritative versions typically prevail
Regulatory compliance may require specific authoritative languages
Contractual obligations may specify authoritative languages
Liability may differ for authoritative versus informative content
Intellectual property considerations may vary by language version
Organizations shall consult legal experts when establishing authoritative language policies and document any legal implications.
For compliance purposes, organizations shall maintain documentation of:
Criteria and processes for determining authoritative status
Changes to authoritative status over time
Quality assurance processes for all language versions
Validation procedures for informative versions
Conflict resolution processes and outcomes
Informative language versions should include appropriate disclaimers:
Clear indication of their informative status
Reference to the authoritative version(s)
Limitations of the informative version
Process for reporting discrepancies
Date of translation or adaptation from the authoritative version
Terminological equivalence management addresses the challenge of establishing relationships between terms in different languages that represent the same or similar concepts. This section outlines approaches for identifying, documenting, and managing different types of equivalence in multilingual terminology resources.
The guidelines in this section are designed to ensure accurate representation of conceptual relationships across languages while acknowledging the reality that perfect equivalence is not always possible due to linguistic and cultural differences.
Full equivalence exists when terms in different languages represent identical concepts with the same characteristics and boundaries.
Characteristics of full equivalence:
Complete conceptual overlap
Same position in respective concept systems
Same definition (accounting for linguistic differences)
Same usage contexts
Same register and connotations
Full equivalence is most common in:
Technical and scientific domains with internationally standardized concepts
Newly developed fields where terminology is adopted across languages
Domains with strong international standardization
The concept of “oxygen” has full equivalents across many languages:
en: oxygen definition: chemical element with atomic number 8
fr: oxygène definition: élément chimique de numéro atomique 8
de: Sauerstoff definition: chemisches Element mit der Ordnungszahl 8
ja: 酸素 definition: 原子番号8の化学元素
Partial equivalence exists when terms in different languages represent similar but not identical concepts, with some differences in characteristics or boundaries.
Types of partial equivalence:
Inclusion (one concept includes the other)
Intersection (concepts overlap partially)
Different register or usage contexts
Different connotations or associations
Different positions in respective concept systems
The English term “privacy” and French “vie privée” have partial equivalence:
en: privacy definition: state of being free from public attention or intrusion into one’s personal matters
fr: vie privée definition: ensemble des activités d’une personne qui relèvent de l’intimité et qui ne concernent pas la vie publique ou professionnelle
The French concept focuses more specifically on activities and has stronger connotations of intimacy than the broader English concept.
Zero equivalence occurs when a concept exists in one language but has no established equivalent term in another language.
Causes of zero equivalence:
Culture-specific concepts
Newly emerged concepts not yet named in all languages
Specialized concepts relevant only in certain linguistic communities
Concepts tied to specific legal or regulatory systems
Concepts related to unique cultural practices or artifacts
The Portuguese concept “saudade” (a deep emotional state of melancholic longing for something or someone that is absent) has no direct equivalent in many languages, representing a case of zero equivalence.
Equivalence assessment shall follow a systematic methodology:
Analyze concept characteristics in the source language
Identify potential equivalent terms in the target language
Compare concept characteristics across languages
Determine the type of equivalence (full, partial, zero)
Document the degree and nature of equivalence
Validate the assessment with subject matter experts
Criteria for assessing equivalence include:
Conceptual overlap (extent to which characteristics match)
Position in respective concept systems
Usage contexts and collocations
Register and stylistic level
Connotations and associations
Acceptance by subject matter experts
Established usage in authoritative sources
The equivalence assessment shall be documented:
Type of equivalence determined
Basis for the determination
Specific differences in case of partial equivalence
Sources consulted
Experts involved in the assessment
Date of assessment
Confidence level of the assessment
When partial equivalence is identified, the following strategies may be employed:
Document the specific differences between concepts
Provide usage notes explaining the limitations of equivalence
Include context examples illustrating appropriate usage
Consider creating multiple target language entries for different aspects of the source concept
Use qualifiers to narrow or expand the concept as needed
For the English term “accountability” which has partial equivalents in many languages:
fr: responsabilité usage note: In French, “responsabilité” encompasses both the concepts of “responsibility” and “accountability” in English, with less emphasis on the aspect of being answerable to external stakeholders than the English “accountability.”
Additional context examples would illustrate appropriate usage scenarios.
When zero equivalence is identified, the following strategies may be employed:
Borrowing the source term
Creating a neologism
Using a descriptive phrase
Using a functional equivalent with explanatory notes
Adapting an existing term with qualifiers
Using a combination of strategies
The choice of strategy should consider:
Target audience needs
Domain conventions
Language policies
Usability considerations
Long-term terminology development goals
For the Japanese concept “wabi-sabi” (侘寂) in English:
Strategy 1 — Borrowing: “wabi-sabi” with note: “A Japanese aesthetic concept centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection, characterized by asymmetry, roughness, simplicity, and appreciation of natural processes.”
Strategy 2 — Descriptive phrase: “imperfect beauty aesthetic” with note: “Refers to the Japanese concept of finding beauty in imperfection, impermanence, and incompleteness.”
When creating neologisms to address zero equivalence, the following guidelines apply:
Follow word formation patterns of the target language
Ensure transparency of meaning where possible
Consider ease of pronunciation and use
Consult with native speakers and subject matter experts
Test acceptance with target users
Document the creation process and rationale
When borrowing terms from the source language, consider:
Adaptation to target language phonology and orthography
Grammatical integration into the target language
Cultural acceptability of borrowings
Existing patterns of borrowing between the languages
Potential for confusion with existing terms
Documentation of the source term and its meaning
Equivalence information shall be represented in terminological entries:
Clear indication of equivalence type
Cross-references between related entries
Notes explaining partial or zero equivalence
Context examples illustrating usage
Source information for equivalence determinations
Visual representation of conceptual relationships where helpful
Equivalence relationships affect how concepts are positioned in multilingual concept systems:
Document differences in concept system structures across languages
Show how partial equivalents relate to other concepts in their respective systems
Indicate where concept boundaries differ
Use visual representations to illustrate cross-language concept relationships
Document culture-specific conceptual structures
Equivalence relationships may evolve over time due to:
Language evolution
Concept development
Increasing international harmonization
Changes in usage patterns
Deliberate terminology planning
Terminology resources shall:
Include version history of equivalence relationships
Document changes in equivalence status
Provide dates for equivalence determinations
Establish review cycles for equivalence relationships
Monitor usage to detect evolving equivalence
Effective multilingual terminology management requires well-defined workflows that coordinate the efforts of various stakeholders across languages and cultures. This section outlines approaches for establishing and managing multilingual terminology workflows, from initial planning through ongoing maintenance.
The guidelines in this section are designed to ensure efficient, collaborative, and high-quality terminology development across multiple languages, with appropriate consideration of authoritative and informative language versions.
Strategic planning for multilingual terminology resources shall address:
Organizational goals and requirements for multilingual terminology
Target languages and their prioritization
Authoritative language determination strategy
Resource allocation across languages
Timeline for development and implementation
Success metrics and evaluation criteria
Alignment with broader content and localization strategies
A strategic plan for multilingual terminology might include:
Primary goal: Support product documentation in 10 languages
Authoritative languages: English and Japanese (product development languages)
First-tier target languages: French, German, Spanish, Chinese (major markets)
Second-tier target languages: Italian, Portuguese, Korean, Russian
Timeline: First-tier languages within 6 months, second-tier within 12 months
Success metrics: 95% terminology consistency in documentation, 30% reduction in translation queries
Before initiating multilingual terminology work, organizations shall assess:
Available expertise in each language
Existing terminology resources
Technology infrastructure
Budget constraints
Time constraints
Stakeholder availability
External resources and partnerships
The scope of multilingual terminology resources shall be clearly defined:
Subject fields and domains to be covered
Concept boundaries and inclusion criteria
Types of terminological data to be collected
Level of detail for each language
Relationship to other terminology resources
Target user groups and their needs
Deliverables and formats
Key stakeholders in multilingual terminology development include:
Subject matter experts in each language
Terminologists and linguists
Content creators and technical writers
Translators and localizers
Product and service developers
Legal and compliance specialists
End users of terminology resources
Management and decision-makers
Organizations shall identify relevant stakeholders for each language and define their roles and responsibilities in the terminology workflow.
Effective collaboration models for multilingual terminology work include:
Centralized model (core team coordinates all language work)
Distributed model (language-specific teams with central coordination)
Hybrid model (combination of centralized and distributed elements)
Community model (broader stakeholder involvement with expert oversight)
Expert network model (reliance on external subject matter experts)
The choice of collaboration model should consider:
Organizational structure
Geographic distribution of expertise
Language priorities
Resource constraints
Quality requirements
Timeline considerations
Clear communication protocols shall be established:
Regular coordination meetings across language teams
Shared documentation and progress tracking
Issue escalation procedures
Decision-making processes
Conflict resolution mechanisms
Knowledge sharing practices
Feedback channels
The workflow shall begin with concept identification and analysis:
Identify concepts requiring multilingual representation
Analyze concept characteristics and boundaries
Determine concept relationships and systems
Document concept origins and cultural context
Identify potential equivalence challenges
Prioritize concepts for multilingual development
Document initial concept information in authoritative language(s)
Term extraction and research shall be conducted:
Extract term candidates from authoritative sources
Research existing terminology usage in each language
Consult subject matter experts in each language
Analyze term usage patterns and contexts
Document term variants and synonyms
Identify potential cultural or linguistic issues
Compile preliminary term lists for each language
Collaborative development of multilingual terminology shall include:
Draft definitions in authoritative language(s)
Propose equivalent terms in target languages
Assess equivalence relationships
Develop target language definitions
Document usage contexts and examples
Address cultural adaptation needs
Resolve terminology conflicts and inconsistencies
Multilingual terminology shall undergo review and validation:
Expert review of conceptual accuracy
Linguistic review of term appropriateness
Cross-language consistency review
Cultural appropriateness review
User acceptance testing
Compliance and legal review if applicable
Final approval by designated authorities
Approved terminology shall be implemented and disseminated:
Import into terminology management systems
Format for various delivery channels
Integrate with content creation tools
Distribute to stakeholders
Provide training and guidance
Monitor initial usage
Gather feedback for improvement
Ongoing maintenance and updating shall be established:
Regular review cycles for all language versions
Process for handling change requests
Update synchronization across languages
Version control and history tracking
Obsolescence management
Feedback incorporation
Continuous improvement processes
The workflow for determining authoritative language versions shall include:
Application of established criteria for authoritative status
Documentation of the rationale for authority decisions
Review and approval of authority designations
Communication of authority status to all stakeholders
Implementation of authority markers in terminology resources
Periodic review of authority designations
The workflow for developing informative language versions shall:
Begin after authoritative versions are approved
Include reference to authoritative source(s)
Involve qualified translators and subject matter experts
Include validation against authoritative versions
Document the relationship to authoritative versions
Establish review processes appropriate to informative status
When authority status changes, the workflow shall include:
Documentation of the rationale for the change
Review of the newly authoritative version
Update of all affected terminology entries
Communication to all stakeholders
Revision of dependent informative versions
Update of all documentation and metadata
Quality criteria for multilingual terminology shall be established:
Conceptual accuracy and clarity
Linguistic correctness and appropriateness
Cultural sensitivity and appropriateness
Consistency within and across languages
Compliance with terminology standards
Usability for target audiences
Technical accuracy and precision
Quality control processes shall be integrated throughout the workflow:
Entry-level validation checks
Peer review processes
Expert validation procedures
Cross-language consistency checks
User feedback mechanisms
Automated quality checks
Regular quality audits
Continuous improvement of multilingual terminology workflows shall be implemented through:
Regular workflow evaluation
Stakeholder feedback collection
Performance metrics analysis
Identification of recurring issues
Process optimization
Best practice documentation
Training and skill development
Terminology management systems supporting multilingual workflows shall provide:
Support for all required languages and scripts
Concept-oriented data structures
Authority status tracking
Equivalence relationship management
Collaborative workflow features
Version control and history tracking
Integration with content creation tools
Collaboration tools for multilingual terminology work shall support:
Cross-language team communication
Document sharing and co-editing
Task assignment and tracking
Review and approval processes
Comment and feedback mechanisms
Version comparison
Knowledge sharing
Workflow automation opportunities include:
Term extraction from corpora
Consistency checking
Status tracking and notifications
Validation against rules and patterns
Report generation
Integration with translation management systems
Synchronization across systems
The technical implementation of multilingual terminology resources requires careful consideration of data structures, exchange formats, system architecture, and integration with other tools and processes. This section outlines approaches for implementing multilingual terminology resources that effectively support the principles and workflows described in previous sections.
The guidelines in this section are designed to ensure that technical implementations of multilingual terminology resources are robust, scalable, interoperable, and capable of supporting the complex requirements of multilingual terminology management.
Multilingual terminology resources shall be based on a concept-oriented data model:
Each concept forms the core of a terminological entry
All language versions are linked to the same concept
Concept characteristics are documented independently of language-specific representations
Concept relationships are maintained at the concept level
Language-specific information is clearly distinguished from concept-level information
Concept-oriented data model example:
` Concept ID: C-0042 Domain: Information Technology Concept diagram: [link to visual representation] Concept relationships: — broader: C-0040 (Computing) — related: C-0043 (Cloud Storage)
Language versions:
en [AUTHORITATIVE]:
Term: cloud computing
Definition: model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network
access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources
Usage context: "The company migrated its infrastructure to cloud computing." fr [INFORMATIVE]:
Term: informatique en nuage
Definition: modèle permettant un accès omniprésent, pratique et à la
demande par le réseau à un pool partagé de ressources informatiques
configurables
Usage context: "L'entreprise a migré son infrastructure vers
l'informatique en nuage."
pass:c,q,a,m,p[```]Data categories for multilingual terminology shall include:
Core concept information (ID, domain, concept relationships)
Term-related information (term, part of speech, usage status)
Definition-related information (definition, source, context)
Administrative information (creation date, modification date, responsible party)
Language-specific information (language code, regional variant, script)
Authority information (authoritative/informative status, authority criteria)
Equivalence information (equivalence type, equivalence notes)
Cultural information (cultural notes, adaptation guidance)
Data categories shall be defined in accordance with
Metadata for multilingual terminology resources shall include:
Resource identification information
Included languages and their status
Subject fields covered
Creation and modification dates
Responsible organizations and individuals
Version information
Usage rights and permissions
Applicable standards and guidelines
Quality assurance information
Intended user groups
Terminology exchange between systems shall use TBX (TermBase eXchange) format as specified in
TBX dialect selection appropriate to the application
Proper mapping of data categories to TBX elements
Inclusion of required administrative information
Appropriate handling of language codes
Proper representation of concept relationships
Documentation of custom data categories
Validation against TBX schemas
Example of TBX representation for a multilingual entry:
`xml <termEntry id=”C-0042”> <descrip type=”subjectField”>Information Technology</descrip> <langSet xml:lang=”en”> <descrip type=”authorityStatus”>authoritative</descrip> <tig> <term>cloud computing</term> <termNote type=”partOfSpeech”>noun</termNote> <descrip type=”definition”>model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources</descrip> </tig> </langSet> <langSet xml:lang=”fr”> <descrip type=”authorityStatus”>informative</descrip> <tig> <term>informatique en nuage</term> <termNote type=”partOfSpeech”>noun</termNote> <descrip type=”definition”>modèle permettant un accès omniprésent, pratique et à la demande par le réseau à un pool partagé de ressources informatiques configurables</descrip> </tig> </langSet> </termEntry> `
In addition to TBX, other exchange formats may be supported:
CSV/Excel for simple terminology lists
XML formats for specific applications
JSON for web applications
RDF/OWL for semantic web applications
Custom formats for specific tools
When using formats other than TBX, organizations shall:
Document the mapping between internal data model and exchange format
Ensure all essential information is preserved
Validate the exchange format against defined schemas
Test the exchange process thoroughly
Document any limitations or information loss
APIs for multilingual terminology resources shall support:
Retrieval of complete terminological entries
Language-specific queries
Concept-based queries
Filtering by various criteria
Authentication and authorization
Rate limiting and usage monitoring
Comprehensive error handling
Documentation and examples for all supported languages
Multilingual terminology databases shall support:
Unicode character encoding (preferably UTF-8)
All scripts required for included languages
Bidirectional text handling
Special characters and symbols
Proper sorting and collation for all languages
Normalization of character representations
Fallback mechanisms for unsupported characters
Search and retrieval functionality shall support:
Language-specific search options
Script-specific search features
Fuzzy matching appropriate to each language
Morphological analysis for relevant languages
Cross-language search capabilities
Filtering by authority status
Filtering by equivalence type
Combined concept and language-based queries
Performance optimization for multilingual databases shall address:
Indexing strategies for multiple languages
Caching mechanisms for frequently accessed entries
Query optimization for language-specific searches
Scalability for growing language coverage
Response time targets for different operations
Load balancing for distributed access
Monitoring and performance tuning
Integration with content authoring systems shall provide:
Real-time terminology verification
Term suggestion capabilities
Context-sensitive terminology lookup
Automatic term recognition
Terminology consistency checking
Feedback mechanisms for terminology issues
Support for all authoring languages
Integration with translation management systems shall support:
Terminology extraction from source content
Terminology verification during translation
Automatic propagation of terminology updates
Term candidate identification
Terminology consistency metrics
Terminology feedback workflows
Support for all translation languages
Integration with localization workflows shall enable:
Terminology verification during localization
Cultural adaptation guidance
Regional variant management
Terminology consistency across localized content
Feedback mechanisms for localization-specific terminology issues
Support for locale-specific terminology requirements
Technical implementation of authority status shall include:
Clear status indicators in the data model
Status filtering in search interfaces
Status-based access controls if required
Status change tracking and history
Status-based validation rules
Status visualization in user interfaces
Status preservation in data exchange
Technical implementation of equivalence relationships shall provide:
Storage of equivalence type information
Visualization of equivalence relationships
Navigation between equivalent terms
Filtering by equivalence type
Documentation of equivalence assessment
Equivalence-based validation rules
Preservation of equivalence information in exchange formats
Security implementation shall include role-based access control:
Terminologist roles for each language
Reviewer roles for quality assurance
Administrator roles for system management
Read-only roles for general users
Language-specific roles for multilingual management
Subject field expert roles
External collaborator roles
Audit capabilities shall support:
Tracking of all terminology changes
User attribution for modifications
Timestamp information for all activities
Approval workflow documentation
Compliance verification
Activity reporting
Security incident monitoring
Deployment options for multilingual terminology systems include:
On-premises installation
Cloud-based deployment
Hybrid deployment
Containerized deployment
Distributed deployment for global access
Mobile-accessible deployment
Offline-capable deployment
Scaling strategies shall address:
Growth in number of languages
Growth in terminology volume
Increasing user base
Geographic distribution of users
Performance requirements
Availability requirements
Disaster recovery needs
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
Withdrawn.
Withdrawn.
Withdrawn.
Withdrawn.
Withdrawn.
Withdrawn.