W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org > October 2014

RE: [xliff] ITS scope with sm/em

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 05:33:58 -0600
To: "'Dr. David Filip'" <David.Filip@ul.ie>, "'Felix Sasaki'" <felix@sasakiatcf.com>
CC: "'Estreen, Fredrik'" <Fredrik.Estreen@lionbridge.com>, "'XLIFF Main List'" <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>, "'public-i18n-its-ig'" <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004401cfe3b4$ea6dda40$bf498ec0$@enlaso.com>
Hi all,

Thanks for the input Fredrik and Felix.

I’m not worried about the XLIFF implementation of those cases: We have had working code for those since a long time (a good use case is mrk with translate='yes|no').

I was thinking more about the ITS aspect of it.

>From an ITS viewpoint something like this: <sm id='1' itx:domain='travel'/>...<em startRef='1'/> the scope of the domain is an empty content (the content of <sm/>). There is nothing in ITS that allows to use distinct elements to annotate a span.

Because, while on the XLIFF side the processing expectation is to treat the content between a given <sm/> and its corresponding <em/> as a span, on the ITS side there is no semantic for such construct.

Cheers,
-ys


From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie] 
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 5:08 AM
To: Felix Sasaki
Cc: Estreen, Fredrik; Yves Savourel; XLIFF Main List; public-i18n-its-ig
Subject: Re: [xliff] ITS scope with sm/em

Felix, I like the algorithmic approach that is open to different implementations.

After all ITS is a set of abstract categories that should not be restricted to hierarchical structured formats.

Now to your proposed algorithm.

Unlike native codes, annotations MUST have the opening and closing tag in the same unit.
So you will be always creating <mrk> nodes from <sm/> tags if you consider the whole <unit> content, which is the point..

Cheers
dF


Dr. David Filip
=======================
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, and Liaison Officer 
LRC | CNGL | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Felix Sasaki <felix@sasakiatcf.com> wrote:
I agree with Fredrik. Processing of overlapping hierarchies is a task that cannot be solved in general and discarding non-hierarchical structures is a good strategy for XML / HTML content.


If people don’t want to specify an XSLT conversion we could also define the conversion process in an algorithmic way like this:

0) set current content to whole content to be processed.
1) is there an s tag in current content?
        Then output text before s tag and do 2)
        else just output all text in current content.
2) has the s tag an e tag with corresponding id?
        Then create a mrk node
        set the content between s and e to new current content
        do 1)
else discard s and go to 1)
3) output rest of text

and say: you can implement this as XSLT (example given) or in different programing languages. That would have the benefit to keep the door open to future non XML, API focsued XLIFF.

- Felix

Am 08.10.2014 um 18:41 schrieb Estreen, Fredrik <Fredrik.Estreen@lionbridge.com>:

> Hi Yves,
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Looking at the ITS mapping: In many case we put the ITS information on a
>> marker (<mrk> element).
>>
>> But such element can be represented by <sm/>...<em/> when it's
>> overlapping another element.
>> In that case the normal ITS scope mechanism can't work because it applies to
>> the empty content of <sm/>, not the content between <sm/> and the
>> corresponding <em/>.
>>
>> We can have provision for this in the XLIFF module. But I'm not sure it's
>> doable in the ITS rules, especially with inheritance when there are nested
>> annotations.
>
> This is an interesting problem and I doubt it is solvable in a general way without additional steps. It might be solvable when the <sm/> and <em/> is in the same segment, but I doubt it is in the case where they start and end in different segments (ie. different sibling trees).
>
> One potentially workable solution would be to apply an XSLT transform on the XLIFF that merges all segments in each unit. Discards any non ITS carrying marker (to reduce risk of overlapping markers) and finally normalize the remaining markers to  the <mrk></mrk> spanning form. Since ITS information will likely be coming from and going to an XML source there should not be any overlapping markers at that stage as they would be difficult to represent in the source format. It is not guaranteed but we could declare that ill-formed. ITS global rules could then be evaluated against the transformed version. Admittedly not the most beautiful solution but I think it could work.
>
>> I vaguely recall that such topic was discussed at some point in the ITS-WG no?
>> Does anyone recall the outcome?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -ys
>
> Regards,
> Fredrik Estreen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 11:34:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:11:31 UTC