RE: [xliff] ref value in translation candidates module element <mtc:match>

["Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>]

Hi Yoshito,

I think we need to modify current specs and clarify the three different "ref" attributes.

For the "ref" attribute in Matches module:

1) if the <source> in <mtc:match> matches the whole <source> of a <segment>, "ref" should point to the "id" of that <segment>

2) If the <source> in <mtc:match> matches a fragment in the <source> of a <segment>, "ref" should point to the "id" of the <mrk> or <pc> element that encloses the matched text.

I'm ignoring the case where the <source> of <mtc:macth> points to the whole content or a fragment of <target> in <segment>. I don't think this should be allowed but there may be some use cases.

For the optional "ref" in Glossary module:

 * if <gls:term> applies to the whole <source> of a segment, "ref" can point to the "id" of the segment.

 * if <gls:term> applies to a fragment of text in <source> or <target> or the whole <target>,  then a "ref" should point to the "id" of a <mrk> or <pc> element.

For the "ref" in Core module:

 * I would allow its use in <note> pointing to the "id" of a <segment> (any part) or to the "id" of fragment enclosed in <mrk>.

Regards,

Rodolfo

--
Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [xliff] ref value in translation candidates module element
<mtc:match>
From: "Yoshito Umaoka" <yoshito_umaoka@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, April 06, 2021 5:08 pm
To: "Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Cc: "xliff@lists.oasis-open.org" <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>

Hi Rodolfo,

>I would differentiate two cases:

>1) The match applies to the whole segment

Yes, I understand the idea. What I'm not sure is, as I mentioned in my previous message, <segment> is a container of <source> and <target>. It makes sense to point to <source> alone (or <target> alone) to specify relevant text for a match candidate. But if it points to <segment> and if the segment has both <source> and <target>, then suddenly it becomes ambiguous.
If we can point <source> or <target>, then it makes more sense, but <source>/<target> cannot have "id".

If we will refine the specification, and if we really want to allow segment can be referenced directly, then we should explain the semantics. In other words:

<mtc:matches>
<mtc:matchid="tu1"ref="#s1"similarity="65">
<source>Please check the output.</source>
<target>Veuillez vÃrifier la sortie.</target>
</mtc:match>
</mtc:matches>
<segmentid="s1">
<source>Please check the results.</source>
<target>Veuillez vÃrifier les rÃsultats.</target>
</segment>

Above is equivalent to

<mtc:matchid="tu1"ref="#m1"similarity="65">
<source>Please check the output.</source>
<target>Veuillez vÃrifier la sortie.</target>
</mtc:match>
</mtc:matches>
<segmentid="s1">
<source><mrkid="m1"type="mtc:match">Please check the results.</mrk></source>
<target>Veuillez vÃrifier les rÃsultats.</target>
</segment>

or

<mtc:matches>
<mtc:matchid="tu1"ref="#m1"similarity="65">
<source>Please check the output.</source>
<target>Veuillez vÃrifier la sortie.</target>
</mtc:match>
</mtc:matches>
<segmentid="s1">
<source>Please check the results.</source>
<target><mrkid="m1"type="mtc:match">Veuillez vÃrifier les rÃsultats.</mrk></target>
</segment>

or something else.

-Yoshito