Re: [all] XLIFF round-trip samples

Thanks for the feedback Yves. I will correct these today at some stage
based on your feedback.

Leroy

On 18 February 2013 21:12, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>