[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff-omos] Changes to schema discussed in last meeting.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vistatec Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483. Registered Office, Vistatec House, 700, South Circular Road, Kilmainham. Dublin 8. Ireland. The information contained in this message, including any accompanying documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s). The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. |
In my implementation has a (possibly undesirable) by-product which is that “root” can contain all four types together.
Besides that “root” can contain all four types, it can also contain repeated types, correct? Say two files and three units?
This can be modeled with a schema, though I wonder how different this will be from the OM (and xliff) design plans?
I agree that “root” should really be a container, which is a natural fit for your example serialization, i.e. simply call it “data” or “content”, where the latter was suggested before.
From: Robert van Engelen [mailto:engelen@genivia.com]
Sent: Saturday 21 October 2017 21:50
To: Phil Ritchie <phil.ritchie@vistatec.com>
Cc: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff-omos] Changes to schema discussed in last meeting.Phil,
My motivations were good in that I didn't want people doing unnecessary work. Anyway I got all my code issues sorted and everything we discussed still stands so all good to make the schema and example changes. The only difference is that fragment, unit, subunit and group need to have a 'type' property not a single 'type' property at jliff level.Great.Am I correct to assume you’re good with the following example of the approach we discussed, i.e. adding “root” and “type” properties at the top level?{
"jliff": "2.1",
"srcLang": "en",
"trgLang": "fr”,“type”: “files”,“root” {
"files": [
{
"id": "fl",
"units": [etc.
An alternative would be to put “type” under “root"{
"jliff": "2.1",
"srcLang": "en",
"trgLang": "fr”,“root” {“type”: “files”,"files": [
{
"id": "fl",
"units": [etc.There are other ways to convey the type of the content. What is the preferred structure in your case?Dr. Robert van Engelen, CEO/CTO Genivia Inc.
voice: (850) 270 6179 ext 104
fax: (850) 270 6179
mobile: (850) 264 2676
engelen@genivia.comOn Oct 15, 2017, at 10:15 PM, Phil Ritchie <phil.ritchie@vistatec.com> wrote:
All
Apologies for my public stream of consciousness last week around whether to implement the schema changes or not. My motivations were good in that I didn't want people doing unnecessary work. Anyway I got all my code issues sorted and everything we discussed still stands so all good to make the schema and example changes. The only difference is that fragment, unit, subunit and group need to have a 'type' property not a single 'type' property at jliff level.
Phil
Phil Ritchie
Chief Technology Officer | Vistatec
Tel: | Direct:
Email:
| ISO 9001 | ISO 13485 | ISO 17100 | ISO 27001 Think Global
Vistatec Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483. Registered Office, Vistatec House, 700, South Circular Road, Kilmainham. Dublin 8. Ireland.
The information contained in this message, including any accompanying documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s).
The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden.
If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]