Hi all,
It's been a while since I've made a contribution to this group, but I have a few observations:
1. I think "match" has a strong TM bias. To me, a (TM) match refers to the source while an MT string provides an alternative translation (for the target). What about "candidate"? The candidate type could then be defined using an attribute.
2. I fully agree with Rodolpho. If "note" and "match" are moved to a different namespace, it should be an official one.
3. I think it's very important to know whether something has already been segmented (this echoes one of Yves' earlier comments: "If there is a need to know whether a content has been through a segmentation process or not, we could also have an attribute for this."). Indicating the type of segmentation (sentence/word) at the attribute level seems useful.
Kind regards,
Johann
Johann Roturier
Principal Research Engineer, SES EMEA
Shared Engineering Services
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
Office: (353) 1 861-7102
-----Original Message-----
From: Rodolfo M. Raya [mailto:]
Sent: 07 April 2011 15:07
To:
Subject: RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 Core
Hi Yves,
SDLXLIFF files are plagued of custom elements around segments. I added multiple <ignorable> before and after a segment to support that.
We could have matches at <unit> and at <segment> level but I'm not sure it is necessary. If you have a match at <unit> level generated from a paragraph, it can be segmented with the same mechanism you use to split the extracted text into <segments>.
It's OK for me to move <match> and <note> to a different namespace, as long as it is an official namespace defined by the XLIFF TC.
I can extend the XML Schema to include <xliff> and <file> elements. If there is agreement, I would create a separate schema for <match> and <note> and another one for a generic <inline> element (it would be a placeholder until the subcommittee finishes the definition of inline markup).
I think that the core should not have <header> or equivalent. Do we agree?
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya <>
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:25 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 Core
>
> Hi Rodolfo, all,
>
> Thanks for the XSD, it's very handy.
>
> I like the more specific <match> instead of the all-purpose <alt-trans>.
> It makes sense to specialize the elements.
> But I don't think candidate matches should be part of the core. (Same for
> <note>).
> To me the core would be just the data needed to extract, translate and
> merge, with possibly a few meta-data like resname, restype, etc. that could
> be considered as basic properties.
>
> Another though about <match>: We probably need to handle also the cases
> where there are match candidates offer for both the whole unit and for each
> segment, instead of just for each segment. Tools like WorldServer offer such
> feature for example.
>
> Handling the "outside" extra spaces/codes with <ignorable> looks good.
> Do we have a case for allowing multiple <ignorable> at each ends? I cannot
> think of any tool that would have more than one inter-segment span. Not a
> big issue: allowing 0 or more just makes it a bit less simple to handle.
>
> -ys
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
