Re: Issue-55: XLIFF mapping - Terminology and termInfoPointer


UL and TCD are working with
<mrk mtype="term"> (and comment for inforef)
as per the mapping agreed here:
This also says that mrk should be used as well at the structural
level, which makes the solution uniform. [Also terminology at
structural level does not seem to be frequent enough to warrant a
different solution].

In the mappings you provide in the samples you use mrk mtype="its-x"
combined with its:term="yes" [combination of a user defined type with
an custom namespace attribute] which seems less interoperable with
general XLIFF editors and more complicated.

I see that you are using both okp:itsTermInfo and note to convey the
term definition. While it seems that duplicating the info in a core
element makes the information more likely to survive. I do not think
that we should recommend using the duplicity.
I guess that we should decide EITHER for note OR mrk comment [my
preference] from the core repertoire and not introduce a custom
Eventually we could say that mrk comment is to be used as canonical
mapping, while the duplicity in note is optional.


Dr. David Filip
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Yves Savourel <> wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>> just to understand: is this a question that might lead
>> to a change in ITS2 or only in the mapping approach?
> No, just the mapping I think.
> Except if there is a need to have some local attribute its:termInfo in ITS, but apparently there was none so far since ITS 1.0.
> As for the mapping: it makes things a bit more complicated, but doable (I think).
> Mārcis, Dave, David: I've updated the XLIFF output of the test files for Terminology with a tentative mapping:
> Any thoughts?
> Thanks,
> -yves

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 11:55:56 UTC