W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > February 2013

RE: [all] XLIFF round-trip samples

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:12:37 -0700
To: "'Dave Lewis'" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, "'Multilingual Web LT Public List'" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00cf01ce0e1c$b3075b40$191611c0$@com>
Hi Dave, all,

I've looked at the examples and have a few more notes:


--- I noticed that you use its:rules (e.g. for Provenance).

I'm really not very enthusiastic about that. While it's easy to code when writing the document, it's a *major* pain to process for the consumer of the XLIFF document. It forces the XLIFF processor to be a full-fledge global/local rules processor as well.
I think we can use ITS in XLIFF via local markup only: it's far simpler to process and it would lower the implementation bar for tools vendors. 

I'm also guessing that in the example, the creator didn't just create the source element but the whole document, so why limit it to each source?
(also "proveanceRecord" is mis-spelled).


--- in EX-xliff-prov-rt-1-post-LQA.xlf:

There is a <glossary> element in 1.2, but it's just a way to reference some non-XLIFF content. There is no glossary-entry, etc. content.

In <mrk its:tanConfidence="0.7" its:tanClassRef="http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place" its:tanIdentRef="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Arizona"> you are missing the mtype attribute which is mandatory. I think mtype='x-it' would be fine.

I think it would be ok to use the same <mrk> for several data categories (like Text Analysis and Terminology here) if they apply to the same span of text: there is no clash of data and it make the file smaller. Maybe a "best practice"? Obviously it's also fine to have separate <mrk>.

There is a <its:domain></its:domain>: Didn't we go back to an attribute a while back? (possibly an ITS native one since someone raise the question about local attribute for Domain).

I've seen an email saying something about using "ta" for the prefix of the renamed Text analysis. Are we using "ta" or "tan"? (sorry if it was said and I missed that).


--- It's a nice example of progressive addition of metadata.
Maybe it would be clearer to have a number in the file name indicating the order, so when the files are sorted alphabetically they are in the processing order. It would make things easy to follow for the users.


cheers,
-yves
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 21:13:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:08 UTC