Re: [ISSUE-55] XLIFF - ITS mapping

Hi Dave, all,

the effort in general is of course very good. However, we had discussed
before that we would work on such "best practice" topics in 2013. Why the

I am asking since as you know from "provenance and agents"
or the tool discussion we have a lot of open issues in the group; and we
haven't even started the editorial sections yet.

I want to avoid the situation of not enough time for and finally (= end of
November) dropping data categories because we spend the time on other



2012/10/16 Dave Lewis <>

> Hi all,
> First thanks to Yves for starting the mapping page at:
> We discussed this in a breakout session at the public section of the XLIFF
> PC today. the aim was to flesh this out further by mid Nov, just to make
> sure there were no hidden problems with the important use case that might
> impact the ITs draft.
> Concretely we will break down the the mapping work per data category to
> named individuals just to make sure we get proper coverage and to save Yves
> having to do all of this important work itself. Please put you name against
> some of the data categories if you'd be willing to help.
> It was pointed out that mapping to both XLIFF 1.2 and XLIFF 2.0 are
> important. Also, it was noted that while some ITS tags map to exisitng its
> meta data, some do not and some also map differently if they have a
> structural scope rather than being related to a fragement of text within an
> element. So therefore the mapping will be a mix of mapping from TIS to
> XLIFF meta-data and also use of meta-data with XLIFF elements, withing the
> constraints of the specficiations. It is therefore unlikely that ITS tags
> can be applied to XLIFF using the rules for default, inherience and
> overriding.
> cheers,
> Dave

Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 08:00:21 UTC