RE: [xliff-omos] Changes to schema discussed in last meeting.

Robert

My current serialization is:

{

“Jliff”: “2.1”,

“srcLang”: “en”,

“trgLang”: “fr”,

“root”: [

{

“id”: “f1”,

“type”: “file”,

“units”: []

}

]

}

In my implementation has a (possibly undesirable) by-product which is that “root” can contain all four types together.

{

“Jliff”: “2.1”,

“srcLang”: “en”,

“trgLang”: “fr”,

“root”: [

{

“id”: “o1”,

“type”: “file”,

“units”: []

{

“id”: “o2”,

“type”: “unit”,

“subunits”: []

{

“id”: “o3”,

“type”: “segment”,

…

{

“id”: “o4”,

“type”: “group”,

…

]

}

Phil

Phil Ritchie

Chief Technology Officer

Vistatec

Vistatec House, 700 South Circular Road,
Kilmainham, Dublin 8, Ireland.

Tel:

+353 1 416 8000

Direct:

+353 1 416 8024

Email:

phil.ritchie@vistatec.com

www.vistatec.com

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.

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.com

On 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

Vistatec House, 700 South Circular Road,
Kilmainham, Dublin 8, Ireland.

Tel:

+353 1 416 8000

|

Direct:

+353 1 416 8024

Email:

phil.ritchie@vistatec.com

www.vistatec.com

|

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.

xliff-omos message