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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff-omos message

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


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



Robert

Correct. Right now I'm working with "content" as the root property name.

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
Vistatec
Think Global
FacebookLinkedInTwitterGoogle Plus
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.

 On 21 Oct 2017, at 18:58, Robert van Engelen <engelen@genivia.com> wrote:


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.

Besides that “root” can contain all four types, it can also contain repeated types, correct? Say two files and three units? This can be modeled with a schema, though I wonder how different this will be from the OM (and xliff) design plans?

I agree that “root” should really be a container, which is a natural fit for your example serialization, i.e. simply call it “data” or “content”, where the latter was suggested before.

- Robert

 
 
{
    “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
Vistatec
Think Global
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Google Plus
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: 
 | 
Direct: 
Email: 
 | 
ISO 9001
 | 
ISO 13485
 | 
ISO 17100
 | 
ISO 27001
Vistatec
Think Global
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Google Plus
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.




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