Re: csprd01- 18, 24, and 36: Glossary Module Design

[Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de>]

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for this improved version. You should also consider to add some 
administrative data (date, time, resource, creator, etc.) to account for 
traceability of the module's entries. Not only think about the human 
employment of this data but also about the machine processability. The 
<translation> element might also benefit from a language attribute to 
include possible regional variants as well as other languages.

By the way, the German "Tabstopptaste" is quite ugly but see my previous 
comment on your German terminology... ;-)

Thanks again, and cheers,

Jörg

On July 17, 2013 at 21:42 (CEST), Ryan King wrote:
> Hi Jörg and Chase,
>
> I hope you don’t mind that I respond to both of you on the same mail.
> Regarding your comments on the glossary module in the recent public
> review of the XLIFF 2.0 spec:
>
> Jörg: “It is unclear if for the "term" type the 'ref' attribute could be
> used to establish a relationship with entries in the Glossary module.
> The Glossary module does not have a mechanism, e.g. an attribute such as
> 'termId', or even an element, that allows for dereferencing” AND “The
> Glossary module is a very simple incarnation of a bi-lingual terminology
> resource (source and target language of the <xliff> element) that does
> not offer either a mechanism to relate the <term> entries with <source>
> and <target> content or any other means to accomplish such a
> relationship by, for example, a term or even a concept identifier.
> Variations or synonyms are also not foreseen, and always require a new
> entry. The only attribute that is required is 'source' for the
> <definition> element which is certainly very bizarre in this context.
> The module has it is defined in the specification is useless because it
> only provides an isolated data bag.”
>
> Chase: “I am not a term expert, but I am concerned that this schema is
> overly simplistic. There is no way identify correlate term entries with
> segment content. The per-term metadata is very limited; in particular
> term variations are not supported.”
>
> We will make the following changes to the specification to address these
> and other issues:
>
> 1.Add an id attribute to <glossentry> so that it can be referenced by
> the <mrk> element as a term annotation.
>
> 2.Change the source attribute on <definition> to be optional.
>
> 3.Allow elements and attributes from any namespace in <glossentry> for
> extensibility
>
> 4.Allow attributes from any namespace in children of <glossentry> for
> extensibility
>
> 5.Allow <translation> to appear zero, one, or more times with an id to
> support synonym translations.
>
> Here is an example:
>
> <unit id="1">
>
>    <segment>
>
>      <source>Press the <mrk id="m1" type="term" ref="#g1">TAB
> key</mrk>.</source>
>
>    </segment>
>
>    <gls:glossary>
>
>      <gls:glossentry id="g1">
>
>        <gls:term abc:concept-id=”25”>TAB key</gls:term>
>
>        <gls:translation id="1">Tabstopptaste</gls:translation>
>
>        <gls:translation id="2">TAB-TASTE</gls:translation>
>
>        <gls:definition>A keyboard key that is traditionally used to
> insert tab characters into a document.</gls:definition>
>
>        <abc:usageNotes>To be used when referring to a physical
> device</abc:usageNotes>
>
>      </gls:glossentry>
>
>    </gls:glossary>
>
> </unit>
>
> Thanks for your interest in XLIFF 2.0!
>
> Ryan