RE: [xliff-omos] XLIFF OM diagrams

Hi,

I’m sending an updated diagram: I’ve added the notes to the unit element.

I’ve also added the ASTAH diagram file, it can be opened and edited using Astah Community Edition (http://astah.net/editions/community). It is a binary file.

We discussed having the diagram in an UML XML-based format, since a binary file format it’s harder to edit concurrently by multiple users (you cannot merge multiple changes done by different users in svn/git).

Astah has capabilities of exporting UML in multiple formats, but they’re not available in the community/free edition, only in the paid edition.

Since I don’t think we want to force people who want to edit it to buy this software, the diagram might be re-created using another software that would have these capabilities for free.

Regards,

Lucian.

From: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Lucian Podereu
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 6:27 PM
To: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] XLIFF OM diagrams

Hi,

I’ve updated the diagram based on the discussion we had in the last meeting.

I’ve added the group element to the diagram.

Since the <file> contains “at least one of <unit> or <group>”, and the <group> contains “Zero, one or more <unit> or <group> elements in any order”, then the diagram can become a bit confusing with regards to the <group> element.

I’ve tried to represent the fact the file can have any combination of units and groups. And that the group can contain other combination of groups and units.

I’ve attached the diagram image to this email.

As always, is not an authoritative representation or 100% correct. But it is there to maybe help the conversation and provide a big level picture on how some of the elements are structured or linked to each other.

Regards,

Lucian.

www.sdl.com

SDL PLC confidential, all rights reserved. If you are not the intended recipient of this mail SDL requests and requires that you delete it without acting upon or copying any of its contents, and we further request that you advise us.

SDL PLC is a public limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 02675207.
Registered address: Globe House, Clivemont Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DY, UK.

From: Patrik Mazanek
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 9:43 AM
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>; Lucian Podereu <lpodereu@sdl.com>; xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] XLIFF OM diagrams

Hi,

I think for the abstract model it makes sense to have them in original data – if for JLIFF we decide to linearize as well that is different question. I do believe that this small complexity is very valuable if you have heavily tagged content.

Patrik

From: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 6:09 PM
To: Lucian Podereu <lpodereu@sdl.com>; xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] XLIFF OM diagrams

Thanks Lucian.

It looks quite good.

I have one comment, but it’s not anything fundamental:

I’m trying to see which representation is better for the original data of the in-line codes.

- A separate table and dataRef property on each inline code object (like in the diagram)

- Or a data property directly on each inline code object.

From a processing viewpoint it seems having the data part of the inline object makes add/delete/update operations easier. But there are also a few advantages with a separate table.

Anyone has opinions on this?

Thanks,

-yves

From: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Lucian Podereu
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 5:22 AM
To: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] XLIFF OM diagrams

Hi,

I've updated the diagram, with some feedback from the last meeting.

Regards,
Lucian.

www.sdl.com

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

Click here to report this email as spam.

xliff-omos message