- From: Serge Gladkoff <serge.gladkoff@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:41:12 +0300
- To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>, "Renat Bikmatov" <renat.bikmatov@logrusglobal.com>, "Sergey Nozhenko" <sergey.nozhenko@logrusglobal.com>
- Message-ID: <01f801d1f93d$0b5a3ec0$220ebc40$@gmail.com>
Hello Felix,
Unfortunately, the problem is that your elegant solution covers only limited number of <sm/> and <em/> cases, as far as we understand.
Your code handles the thing when <sm/> and <em/> are in one element, as if it would be the <mrk> </mrk> consisting of the pair of elements.
This simplistic case is not, of course, in conflict with ITS specification.
However, as far as we understand, <sm/> and <em/> are generally intended for far more complex cases…. It is where the problem hides… We currently can’t imagine solution for those more complex cases, described in our mail below.
Cheers,
Serge
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:19 AM
To: Serge Gladkoff
Cc: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; Renat Bikmatov; Sergey Nozhenko
Subject: Re: ITS rules for XLIFF 2.1
Am 17.08.2016 um 23:08 schrieb Serge Gladkoff <serge.gladkoff@gmail.com>:
Hello Felix,
I am sorry to say this but our developers believe that this is a clear case where ITS hit rock-bottom, so to speak.
The function of <sm>/<em> tags is to markup the areas which cannot be annotated by one tag because this would result in invalid XML file. This happens when the markup is conflicting with other tags. For example, with segmentation.
In such cases inheritance does not work because the beginning of the unit may find itself inside one tag, and the end – inside another, and even on different levels.
Indeed - that was exactly my point.
How one could describe ITS tags distribution in such cases?
By keeping your ITS processor (including inheritance behavior) as is, and then specify additional processing for sm, as defined below. My main point was that this does not change the behavior of a conformant ITS processor. It is *additional* behavior.
Indeed, it is far from clear.
I wouldn't call this “a small burden”.
I implemented this as an additional behavior of my ITS processor. See
https://github.com/fsasaki/its20-extractor/commit/4816b29f8b7010f307c5dad98b1ab4aa92c4ae70
the changes to datacategories-2-xsl.xsl . The changes was 4 lines of code. I am happy to look at your code with your developers, if that helps, to lower the burden.
Best,
Felix
Regards,
Serge
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 7:20 PM
To: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Subject: ITS rules for XLIFF 2.1
Hi all,
in the OASIS TC, currently the support of ITS in XLIFF 2.1 is being discussed.
As part of the discussion an ITS rules file is developed. The file should allow general ITS processors to work with XLIFF 2.X documents. There is one issue: XLIFF has elements „sm“ and „em“ which are empty markers. (ITS or any other) information then relates to the content between the start and end marker.
Below is a mail I had sent to the XLIFF list to find a work around. This would put a (small) burden on ITS processors, to deal with the sm / em elements. See below, I tried this with my general XSLT implementation. What do people think on this, esp. implementers?
Best,
Felix
Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
Von: Felix Sasaki < <mailto:felix@sasakiatcf.com> felix@sasakiatcf.com>
Betreff: Implementation of XLIFF 2.1 - ITS module
Datum: 12. August 2016 um 11:51:14 MESZ
An: XLIFF Main List < <mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org> xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi all,
I started an ITS module implementation relying on my generic ITS processor. See the processed files here
<https://github.com/fsasaki/its20-extractor/tree/master/sample/xliff21sample> https://github.com/fsasaki/its20-extractor/tree/master/sample/xliff21sample
external-rules.xml contains the rules, currently only for text analytics. inputfile.xml is an XLIFF 2.1 input file, currently with ITS Text Analytics information. The output is as a list of XPath expressions in nodelist-with-its-information.xml and as inline annotations in output-inline-annotation.xml
The output shows one issue which we had discussed before, see below, taken from output-inline-annotation.xml
<source>
<itsAnn xmlns=""/>
<sm id="sm1"
type="itsm:generic"
itsm:taClassRef=" <http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place> http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place"
itsm:taIdentRef=" <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Arizona> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Arizona">
<itsAnn xmlns="">
<elem>
<taClassRefPointer xmlns:xlf2="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0"
xmlns:its=" <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
xmlns:datc=" <http://example.com/datacats> http://example.com/datacats"
itsm:taClassRef=" <http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place> http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place"/>
<taIdentRefPointer xmlns:xlf2="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0"
xmlns:its=" <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
xmlns:datc=" <http://example.com/datacats> http://example.com/datacats"
itsm:taIdentRef=" <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Arizona> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Arizona"/>
</elem>
</itsAnn>
</sm>Arizona<em startRef="sm1">
<itsAnn xmlns=""/>
</em>
</source>
With the ITS rules file, „sm“ is annotated to have the text analytics information. But it is actually the content between sm and em that should be annotated. I don’t know how to resolve this. Maybe we should add to the ITS module the constraint that extends general ITS processors: if the selected element is XLIFF sm, apply the ITS information to the next em which corresponds to sm, via the startRef attribute. This would be a small burden on the ITS processors, but would greatly simply the creation of the ITS/XLIFF rules file.
Thoughts?
Best,
Felix
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2016 10:42:01 UTC