XLIFF OMOS TC regular telco

When:  Feb 25, 2020 from 17:00 to 18:00 (WET)
Description:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff-omos/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3822



==========
Agenda:

Plans to publish

LIOM and JLIFF



==========
Minutes:

Attendance:

Robert, Phil, and dF

60% of voters

We reviewed Robert's proposed local edits on the JLIFF prose

Discussed usage of terms "object", "property", "string", "type" etc. in the JLIFF prose spec

A number of issues identified in both JLIFF 2.0 and 2.1 schemas.

E.g. fs module was not allowed on unit

Decided to make kind REQUIRED on subunit objects to avoid complexities of handling the "segment" default

Decided not to delete not referenced Docbook files from the JLIFF prose repo for the time being. These might be needed later on to describe XLIFF mapping..

Robert to commit the JLIFF schema fixes

Robert asked how to deal with XLIFF examples using <pc> or <mrk>

dF showed an example from XML Prague:

 

<source>Eat <ph id="1" equiv="[number]"/> eggs for <mrk id="2">breakfast</mrk>. </source>

 

{

"source" : [

{"text" : "Eat "} ,

{"kind" : "ph" , "id" : "1", "equiv" : "[number]"} ,

{"text" : " eggs for "} , {"kind" : "sm" , "id" : "2"} ,

{"text" : "breakfast"} ,

{"kind" : "em" , "id" : "3" , "startRef" : "2"} ,

{"text" : ". "}

]

dF to post the XML Prague 2019 presentation with the solution to the working list

 

We reviewed Phil's issue with locQualityIssues not being an array of arrays in the current JLIFF schema

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff-omos/email/archives/202002/msg00002.html

The same issue identified with provenanceRecords

Robert to commit correspnding JLIFF 2.1 schema changes

 

Next meeting will be scheduled for March 10

Adjourned 18:12 UTC



==========
Attendance:
Meeting Statistics
Quorum rule 51% of voting members
Achieved quorum yes
Individual Attendance Contributing Members: 3 of 16 (18%)
Voting Members: 3 of 5 (60%) (used for quorum calculation)
Company Attendance Contributing Companies: 3 of 13 (23%)
Voting Companies: 3 of 5 (60%)