RE: csprod01 comments 018, 024, 028, 036, 050 and F2F meeting - Extending the Glossary module.

Hi All,

 

Regarding David’s comments in “Actions (to be) Taken” on the Issue Tracker on comment 018:

 

A] make Glossary Module more expressive: 1) make <glossentry> extensible by both elements and attributes, 2) make children extensible by attributes, 3) Introduce id to be able to reference back from <mrk type="term">; B] Remove <glossary>
 from <file> // duplicate of 36 and 50 (master)

 

In the F2F in London, I think we talked about only allowing elements from any namespace in <glossentry>, however, if people are ok with the level of extensibility David suggests above, I think this will be more consistent with the level
 of extensibility that exists in other modules. So, I’m updating item 4.b in the proposal to the following:

 

1.     
Add an id attribute to <glossentry> so that it can be referenced by a term annotation.

2.     
Add a ref attribute to <glossentry> to reference a <segment> within the scope of a <unit> where segmentation/re-segmentation can occur.

3.     
Change the source attribute on <definition> to be optional.

4.     
EITHER

a.     
Add <mda:metadata> to <glossentry> OR

b.     
Allow elements and attributes from any namespace in <glossentry> and allow attributes from any namespace in children of <glossentry>

 

 

From:  [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Ryan King

Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 1:55 PM

To: 

Subject: [xliff] csprod01 comments 018, 024, 028, 036, 050 and F2F meeting - Extending the Glossary module.

 

Hi All, 

 

I would like to put forth two proposals for extending the glossary module based on comment 018, 024, 028, 036, 050 and the discussion we had in the F2F in London. I propose the following:

 

1.     
Add an id attribute to <glossentry> so that it can be referenced by a term annotation.

2.     
Add a ref attribute to <glossentry> to reference a <segment> within the scope of a <unit> where segmentation/re-segmentation can occur.

3.     
Change the source attribute on <definition> to be optional.

4.     
EITHER

a.     
Add <mda:metadata> to <glossentry> OR

b.     
Allow elements from any namespace in <glossentry>

 

I would prefer 4.a because then tool implementers could at least treat the data in a way that is consistent with metadata overall.

 

Here are examples of the proposal:

 

<unit>

  <segment id="s1">

    <source>Hello <mrk id="m1" type="term" ref="#g1">World</mrk></source>

  </segment>

  …

</unit>

<gls:glossary>

  <glossentry id="g1" ref="s1">

    <term></term>

    <translation></translation>

    <definition></definition>

    <mda:metadata></mda:metadata>

  </glossentry>

</gls:glossary>

 

<unit>

  <segment id="s1">

    <source>Hello <mrk id="m1" type="term" ref="#g1">World</mrk></source>

  </segment>

  …

</unit>

<gls:glossary>

  <glossentry id="g1" ref="s1">

    <term></term>

    <translation></translation>

    <definition></definition>

    <xyz:any></xyz:any>

  </glossentry>

</gls:glossary>

 

Thanks for your consideration,

Ryan