OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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

Hi Ryan,

Well, in princple that's pretty much understandable. And sure, I can add a lot of things with a separate namespace. But IMHO this would be against the general spirit of XLIFF 2.0 which aims at having a common format that can be used to seamlessly exchange information between different tools along the localization and translation supply chain, and guarantee interoperability between these tools (and accoring to the package metaphor used in the specification). Think about, for example, SQL that has once given us such a guarantee to solve the integration problem between RDBs... ;-)

Regarding German terminology I 'll send you some proposals in a separate email.

Thanks and cheers -- Jörg

On July 19, 2013 at 20:20 (CEST), Ryan King wrote:
Hi Jörg, it was the general consensus of the TC to keep this terminology module simple and avoid building in complex terminological features; however, we wanted to make it extensible and flexible for those implementers who wanted more complexity. The data you mention below could be added to <gls:glossary> by using attributes or elements from another namespace. If you have complex terminological needs, another option is to add an external reference using the <mrk> element to create a term annotation, which points to an external termbase. We also removed <gls:glossary> from <file> level, which would allow implementers to define their own terminology extension/module, perhaps based on a more complex schema such as TBX.

Again, if you have better German translations I could use in my examples, you can send them my way.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jörg Schütz [mailto:joerg@bioloom.de]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 12:40 AM
To: Ryan King
Cc: chase@spartansoftwareinc.com; 'xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: Re: csprd01- 18, 24, and 36: Glossary Module Design

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,


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

4.Allow attributes from any namespace in children of <glossentry> for

5.Allow <translation> to appear zero, one, or more times with an id to
support synonym translations.

Here is an example:

<unit id="1">


      <source>Press the <mrk id="m1" type="term" ref="#g1">TAB



      <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




Thanks for your interest in XLIFF 2.0!


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]