Re: [xliff] Glossaries in XLIFF 2.0

["Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>]

This sounds good to me re TBX, thanks Rodolfo..

dF

Dr. David Filip

=======================

LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS

University of Limerick, Ireland

telephone: +353-6120-2781

mobile: +353-86-049-34-68

facsimile: +353-6120-2734

mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 18:33, Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> wrote:

Hi David,

The glossary format that is currently in SVN is based on GlossML, a simple design that was proposed earlier to LISA for holding glossary data in those cases where TBX is overkill.

It is quite easy to export a glossary embedded in an XLIFF file as TBX using an XSL stylesheet. Actually, stylesheets for converting GlossML to TBX already exist and with a minor modification they could fit the design proposed for XLIFF.

Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya       rmraya@maxprograms.com
Maxprograms       http://www.maxprograms.com

> From: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
> To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:40:27 +0000

>
>Hi all, overall I do not think there is harm in XLIFF having its own small glossary mechanism. The role of this glossary mechanism would not be a full blown Terminology management solution. It should be more like a means for terminology managed elsewhere to survive transformations of the XLIFF translation package.
> The obvious benefits should be in the scenarios of suggesting and creating new terminology entries, creating target terminology candidates based on a source terminology, and displaying existing terminology to users in context without need to manually navigate to specialized terminology management servers.

> It think that apart from its own internal mechanism the solution should contain a mapping to/and from TBX light/basic (we know of TBX shortcomings in the technical area, but a mapping of a minimal set of data categories should be still possible).
> We should also consider OWL (Lite/DL) mappping/hook.
> Last but not least. Interoperability Now XLIFF:Doc contains an interesting proposal of an UTX wrapper. IMHO we should liaise with AAMT and find a solution for maintaing the XML wrapper for UTX, as UTX unfortunately is based on a tab delimited format..

> I might miss other important links, still the bottom line should be that XLIFF must have a terminology survival mechanism to be able to provide a complete L10n roundtrip solution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org