Thanks Fredrick for the productive feedback. Since the id is specifically intended to refer to the <mrk> element, we should at least introduce a type attribute
then. Additionally, it would still be worthwhile in our opinion to be able to group <notes> with associated note “metadata” as you call it. Any thoughts on that? Perhaps a grouping element or a group attribute a la the discussion on metadata?
<notes>
<notegroup name=”instructions”>
<note id=”1” type=“instruction">Do not localize the product name</note>
<note type=“origin">loc-engineer</note>
<note type=”priority”>1</note>
</notegroup>
</notes>
versus
<notes>
<note id=”1” type=“instruction" group=”instructions”>Do not localize the product name</note>
<note type=“origin" group=”instructions”>loc-engineer</note>
<note type=”priority” group=”instructions”>1</note>
</notes>
Thanks,
Ryan
From:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Estreen, Fredrik
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:11 AM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya;
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals
Hi Rodolfo, Ryan,
I think the intent of the <notes> is lost with the current proposal. The feature is designed so that <notes> is a container for a group of <note>s at a specific
level in the document. Where each <note> is one annotation / comment in itself. The suggested change transforms that so that the <notes> element becomes the entity describing one note, with <note> describing specific pieces of metadata related to that note.
The ID is intended to be used to refer to the note from other places such as from <mrk> elements in the inline content, so overloading it to be the type of data would cause additional problems.
I think the initial model is much easier to work with and more clean as it contain all note related information in one sub tree per document level where notes
are allowed. Adding attributes to the <note> element is in my opinion the best way to go. If we should have more standard attributes or if a processor is free to use the third party namespace extension mechanism to add them is another question. Depending on
how simple we want to keep the basic notes feature it could be either or a mix of the two methods.
Although I’m not a fan of the third party extensions I think this is a case where they could make sense. And if used for process specific metadata only I don’t
see an issue. Of course there will be no standard way to display them in a UI or report if they are not specified in the standard.
Regards,
Fredrik Estreen
From:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org ]
On Behalf Of Rodolfo M. Raya
Sent: den 28 november 2012 09:32
To:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals
Still a bad use case that doesn’t justify ruining a good design.
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya
rmraya@maxprograms.com Maxprograms
http://www.maxprograms.com From: Ryan King [ mailto:
ryanki@microsoft.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:32 AM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya; <
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org >; Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals
So that our original reason for proposing having more than one <notes> at the extension point does not get obfuscated in all of the replies and “see inlines”,
here once again, is the use case for adding more than one <notes> per extension:
Proposal 4: Add an optional name attribute on <notes> in core and <mds:metadata> module.
We believe it will be typical for content providers to want to group their notes or metadata in meaningful ways. This might be done so that a certain number of notes or bits of metadata can be processed in the same way, or simply grouped
and displayed together, such as in an editor UI. Here are some examples:
<notes
name="comments" >
<note id=“comment">This string cannot be longer than 100 characters</note>
<note id=“origin">developer</note>
<note id=”priority”>1</note>
</notes>
<notes
name="instructions" >
<note id=“instruction">Do not localize the product name</note>
<note id=“origin">loc-engineer</note>
<note id=”priority”>2</note>
</notes>
As opposed to something less structured and more difficult to process:
<notes>
<note id=“instruction">Do not localize the product name</note>
<note id=“instruction-origin">loc-engineer</note>
<note id=”instructions-priority”>1</note>
<note id=“comment">This string cannot be longer than 100 characters</note>
<note id=”comment-priority”>2</note>
</notes>
Thanks,
Ryan
From: Rodolfo M. Raya [ mailto:
rmraya@maxprograms.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:41 PM
To: Ryan King
Cc: Yves Savourel; <
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org >
Subject: Re: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals
Please don't ruin te design for <notes>. Only one should be allowed per insertion point.
Regards,
Rodolfo
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:45 PM, "Ryan King" <
ryanki@microsoft.com > wrote:
Hi Yves, in last week’s TC call it was mentioned that I should work with the owners of the current features to get our requirements implemented for proposals
that weren’t deemed as features. I believe you are the owner for the matches module and notes. Can you please let me know what we need to do to move forward with getting these implemented?
·
Proposal 2: Be able to specify optional custom values for match type in <mtc:matches>
·
Proposal 4: Add an optional name attribute on <notes> in core (which also means that we need to allow
zero, one or more <notes> in each position in the tree structure)
Additionally, it was deemed that we should add Reference Language to the <mtc:matches> module. How do you want to move forward with that? Since the module is
already defined in the 2.0 spec, can I just suggest the method and if you agree, you can fold it into the current module definition? I would propose:
1.
That we allow
zero, one or more <mtc:matches> at each extension point, because you might have both recycling and reference language data.
2.
Add an optional attribute reference=”yes no” with no as default. Additionally, PR for a “reference match” would be to allow an xml:lang on the target different
from the document and allow the <source> not to be present as it would be redundant information with the core <source>, e.g. Spanish reference for Quechua might look like this:
<mtc:matches>
<mtc:match reference=”yes”>
<segment>
<target xml:lang=”es-es”>hola mundo</target>
</segment>
</mtc:match>
</match>
I’m not sure if any of these require an electronic ballot. I got the impression from the call that they don’t, but hopefully Bryan or David or someone else from
the call will correct that if false.
Please let me know how I can work with you on these.
Ryan
From:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org ]
On Behalf Of Ryan King
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 5:02 PM
To: Dr. David Filip; Yves Savourel;
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals
Thanks Yves and David for the valuable feedback. See our comments inline below prefixed with [Microsoft]. As David suggested on another thread, we will add
these soon to the wiki.
From:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org ]
On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:24 PM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals
Yves, Ryan et. al.
Commenting inline..
Cheers
dF
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Yves Savourel <
ysavourel@enlaso.com > wrote:
Hi Ryan, all,
> Proposal 1: Add an optional build attribute to 2.0 <file> element in core.
> ..
> <file id=”1” original=”mainUI.resx” build="2011-11-23-133615307_windc.win8.beta.b01">
I don't see anything wrong with this.
> Proposal 2: Be able to specify optional custom values for match type
> attribute in the <mtc:matches> module.
> Content providers and Localization Suppliers base their cost and billing
> models on match similarity and match types. Localization suppliers charge
> us differently for ICE Matches, Exact Matches, and Fuzzy Matches, and we
> might even want to get more granular than that as our cost and billing models
> evolve with the business.
> In 2.0, the match type doesn’t support the values exact-match and fuzzy-match,
> which were defined in the state-qualifier attribute in 1.2. Instead of supporting
> these two, or any others that may not have migrated from 1.2 to 2.0,
> as a separate attribute, the request is, that like the discussion on state
> and sub-state in the Face-to-Face in Seattle, we add a sub-type to match type.
> This will allow us to add extra business logic to types, such as "tm" or "mt",
> which are already defined in the spec.
> <match id=”1” similarity=”100.0” type=”tm/xlf:exact”>
> <match id=”1” similarity=”75.0” type=”tm/xlf:fuzzy”>
> <match id=”1” similarity=”99.0” type=”tm/custom:near-exact”>
I understand the need for the information, but to me, it seems the similarity give you whether a match is exact or not.
The example however, shows (I think) that you are thinking about categories that could be mapped differently to the similarity depending on projects. For example in one project a near-match corresponds to one range and in another to a different range, and you
want to simply map that info to something common across your process, without having to carry the ranges around. If that's the case I wonder if XLIFF should define any default like xlf:exact, etc.
I believe there is value in decoupling the "percentage" from the "business" type of the match. The number means nothing unless we opt to prescribe a specific variety of (modified) Levenshtein, and I i guess we should not open this particular
can of worms..
So I wouldn't see a problem with a sub-type there.
A side comment on the match type: especially, if we allow sub-type, I'm still not sure about the values currently listed.
[Microsoft] we definitely advocate decoupling the “percentage” from the “business” type of match as David puts it. And we should not prescribe meaning to the
percentage, either. Costing models built on top of these values will necessarily change from one provider/supplier to the next and as Yves states, possibly from one project to the next. We could very easily have the following (and we do in much of our recycled
content):
<match id=”1” similarity=”100.0” type=”tm/xlf:exact”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”100.0” type=”ice”>
In the first case, we’ve recycled a candidate which is 100% match, but came from a segment whose state isn’t signed off or final yet, whereas the ice match,
in our case, has the requirement of being 100% and signed off or final.
> Proposal 3: Add an optional Reference Language to core.
> This is a crucial feature for Microsoft and other large companies that localize
> minority languages. For example, it is typical that when we localize from
> English into Quechua, localizers are more efficient and provide much higher
> quality translation, when along with English source, we provide them with
> Spanish target. In 1.2, Reference Languages could be defined in
> an <alt-trans> element:
I see the use case and I've seen other cases like this, with Chinese (simplified/Traditional).
Could that be part of the match module?
Possibly with a new attribute (e.g. reference='yes no' defaulting to no)
Adding something along with <source>/<target> is bound to cause additional PR issues. If it's part of the Match module, it just uses whatever the module PRs are.
I agree with Yves's reasons to have this within the match module, which is anyway the alt-trans successor. I guess it does not fulfill the core criteria
[Microsoft] Adding this to the match module would be fine as long as the proper explanatory text and processing instructions make it clear what this data should
be used for as opposed to recycling.
> Proposal 4: Add an optional name attribute on <notes> in core
> and <mds:metadata> module.
> We believe it will be typical for content providers to want to
> ...
> <notes name="comments">
> <note id=“comment">This string cannot be longer than 100 characters</note>
> <note id=“user">
Developer@microsoft.com </note>
> <note id=“date">10/21/2012 5:28:13 PM</note>
> </notes>
Sounds reasonable. We'll have to allow several <notes> and <m:metadadat> (I think (but I may be wrong) only one is allowed)) on the extension point.
The example makes me wonder about the long term life of XLIFF though: likely this type of info (author, timestamp) will be needed by other. Maybe a better way to address it would be to add attributes to the note and meta that carry the author and time stamp?
That would obviously work only if those two info are the only example you have in mind.
I agree with Yves that a couple of standard attributes should be added to increase interoperability, still I believe that note should be fully extendable, as it is part of the general annotation mechanism and should be able to carry attributes
from other namespaces.
[Microsoft] Capturing an author and timestamp on a comment is specific to our needs and thus that example. However, we do see value in being able to apply an
author and timestamp on potentially any piece of data. So a module (as Yves suggests below) that can exists at the same extension points as metadata (and including metadata) might lend itself better to that.
> Proposal 5: Add optional change tracking attributes to <segment>.
> ...
> <segment id=”1” modifiedBy=”
translator@loc.com ”
> modifiedDate=”10/21/2012 5:28:13 PM”>
> <source>hello world</source>
> <target>hola món</target>
> </segment>
Here again I'm wondering if a "change track" module may be better?
You could use it not just on segments but other elements: notes.
The issue then would be how this gets updated if it's not a core component?
Actually if it's a core attribute, does it means it's not optional?
I'm not sure there is a way, even with a PR, to guarantee these data will be up-to-date.
But maybe that's ok?
Optional attributes in core are tricky, IMHO It means you do not need to introduce it yourself, if you do not feel so.. But if present it would need to be processed by agents who modify the segment. If it is thinkable that change agents
do not update it, it feels more like a module...
[Microsoft] Since we are heading down the same path to MUST preserve modules as well, if we introduce a “change track” module, then user agents would need to preserve it if present,
but as for any other processing requirements, such as updating it, that could be specified as part of the module’s processing requirements. For example: The module MUST be preserved and SHOULD be updated by user agents.
cheers,
-yves
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail:
xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org