On Oct 22, 2017 03:58, "Robert van Engelen" <engelen@genivia.com> wrote:
In my implementation has a (possibly undesirable) by-product which is that “root” can contain all four types together.
I agree with Phil that this is undesirable..
Besides that “root” can contain all four types, it can also contain repeated types, correct? Say two files and three units?
This type of repetition shouldn't be allowed.
This can be modeled with a schema, though I wonder how different this will be from the OM (and xliff) design plans?
This is very different from the OM and would not be interoperable with the XML pipeline. You'd need to expand multiple coresponding XLIFF files when going XML. And I don't think we want to go there.
Each JLIFF should have just a single instance of root content..
The values governing what type this instance is should not repeat the names from the lower level, because the reason to introduce the root content characteristics was that the lower level content was ambiguous from the OM point of view.
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.
So this is correct, just that the values to govern the content selection should be and map like this
liff -> content must be "files"
file/fragment -> content should be an unlimited choice group of "groups" and "units"
OR we could introduce "subfiles" (by analogy tu "subunits" which can intermix segments and ignorables) that could intermix group and unit content objects.
group -> content should be an unlimited choice group of "groups" and "units"
OR we could introduce "subgroups" that could intermix group and unit content objects.
Now that I wrote all of the above, it seem to me that we could and should get rid of the top level content property by simply introducing more content types. This makes the content unambiguous from the OM and XLIFF points of view.
We'd have "files" which equals liff in OM, "subfiles" which equals file, "subgroups" which equals group. And "subunits" for unit.
"subfiles" and "subgroups" have exactly the same data model in JLIFF, which is fine because they have the same models in OM. We just call them differently to preserve the OM level, which is critical for switching pipelines..
Cheers dF
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.comOn 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
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.