Next in thread → Next in month →

Re: [xliff] AnnotatorsRef and stand-off items

From
David Filip <>
Date
2016-05-24T12:32:38+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [xliff] AnnotatorsRef and stand-off items
I agree with Felix that in this case the LQI provider for both issues is XYZ.
Another question is (as asked by Yves in our last ITSM editing call) if annotatorsRef is allowed on standoff elements in general and on LQI standoff elements in particular. The combinatorics of the inheritance would be even more complicated if the annotatorsRef was allowed on standoff as I thought it was.

Cheers

dF

Dr. David Filip
===========

OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair

OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer

Spokes Research Fellow

ADAPT Centre

KDEG, Trinity College Dublin

Mobile: +420-777-218-122

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Felix Sasaki <> wrote:

Hi Yves, all,

if you process this with an ITS processor, this part from the ITS spec is relevant:

https://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#its-tool-annotation

„On any given node, the information provided by this mechanism is a space-separated list
            of the accumulated references found in the annotatorsRef attributes declared
            in the enclosing elements and sorted by data category identifiers. For each data
            category, the IRI part is the one of the inner-most declaration."

So I would say the value should come from mrk and it should be XYZ. 

Best,

Felix

Am 23.05.2016 um 15:44 schrieb Yves Savourel <>:

Hi all,

A question on ITS annotatorsRef and standoff entries.

In the XLIFF document below, I have 2 LQI entries in a standoff element.
Both inherit their annotatorsRef value.

I have one annotatorsRef defined on <file> and one annotatorsRef defined on the <mrk> where the reference to the standoff group is
located.

I'm not saying this is likely to exist, but the processor has to resolve the use case, since in may occur.

The question: What should be the annotatorsRef value for the two LQI entries? toolABC (inherited from <file>) or toolXYZ (inherited
from <mrk>)?

I have an opinion, but I'd like to make sure it matches the behavior others expect.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xliff xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0" version="2.1" srcLang="en" trgLang="fr"
 xmlns:itsm="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:itsm:2.1">
 <file id="f1" itsm:annotatorsRef="localization-quality-issue|toolABC">
  <unit id="u1">
   <itsm:locQualityIssues id="lqi1">
    <itsm:locQualityIssue 
     locQualityIssueType="misspelling"
     locQualityIssueComment="'c'es' is unknown. Could be 'c'est'"
     locQualityIssueSeverity="50" />
    <itsm:locQualityIssue 
     locQualityIssueType="grammar"
     locQualityIssueComment="Sentence is not capitalized"
     locQualityIssueSeverity="20" />
   </itsm:locQualityIssues>
   <segment>
    <source>This is the container</source>
    <target><mrk id="m1" type="itsm:generic" itsm:annotatorsRef="localization-quality-issue|toolXYZ"
		itsm:locQualityIssuesRef="#itsm=lqi1">c'es le conteneur</mrk></target>
   </segment>
  </unit>
 </file>
</xliff>

Thanks,
-yves

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Next in thread → Next in month →