Description:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff-omos/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3822
==========
Agenda:
A. Admin
1- Roll call
x out 7 Voters total
B. Material
1- XLIFF OM
(https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-omos-om)
2- JLIFF
(https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-omos-jliff)
AI Robert: Update the examples to conform to latest schema
- Continue discussion on qualified names
Possible prefixes?
underscore "_"
colon ":"
dolar sign "$"
Consensus from last time was ":"
But see Chase take on context:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff-omos/email/archives/201710/msg00000.html
Looks like "_" more viable after all?
Let's discuss usage of a general context file that woul be linked from all JLIFF, as proposed by Chase..
There will be new extraction /merge example by Moravia, should appear either on XLIFF SVN or TAPICC GitHub..
3- TBX Mapping
Report from editorial 1-2-1 meeting [skipping until TC 37 meetings in Vienna late June]
current editor's draft: https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/xliff-omos/trunk/XLIFF-TBX/xliff-tbx-v1.0.pdf
Is it time to resume work on the TBX Basic mapping?
C- Otherr Topics
2- Liaisons
Where to place work on extraction reference guides? Seems industry want that..
Proposed that as TAPICC track inside Strand 1 Supply Chain Automation. WG3
Tragte to provide technically stable JLIFF 1.0 by GALA Boston March 2018.
Ballot on cs01 will started at XLIFF TC.. See https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=3130
3- Promotion
FEISGILTT / XLIFF / JLIFF Symposium schedule published
https://locworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/FEISGILTT2017Program.pdf
Registration open
https://locworld.com/events/feisgiltt2017/
4- AOB
1- Date of next meeting
2- Looking for a new secretary. Contact dF
dF: We are skipping Oct. 24th. Do the other dates (14th Nov, 28th Nov, 12th Dec) sound good? Will run Doodle for the holiday season..
==========
Minutes:
OMOS 10 October 2017 Attendees: phil (minutes), david, chase, robert,
Previous minutes: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff-omos/email/archives/201710/msg00001.html Minutes approved as record.
df: hope to make progress soon on object model.
AI from last meeting actioned by RVE rve: added source and target attributes and also different roots.
pr: discussed his email regarding different roots and the impact on serialization/deserialization cdoe.
rve: schema uses "oneOf" properties. A new property of "content" could abstract these properties away.
df: we could call the logical root property "root".
rve: modify example 4 instead of units have root and above that have type property of "group" or "file"
df: without type you cannot tell what level the content is.
pr: generic root property and an additional type property describing the value of root.
ct: I don't feel totally comfortable with root because it has no semantics but we can use it for the moment until I think of an alternative.
rve: I will make teh changes for the next meeting.
df: standard makers should go for ease of implementation even if schema is more difficult.
rve: if the schema is example driven then it should be fine.
df: I like the idea of a massive "context" file somewhere. we could havea good location for teh context file and just reference it. ...having the context in a rock solid location is ideal.
rve: agreed. ...if this is acceptable then the question is at what level you want to store it ...either define the namespace or the namespace and name
ct: I need to look at it but it seems promising. ...it would be cleaner
df: you propose uri shortening with context ...jliff can be more fluid if we don't define all of the names ...one minor issue when using prefixes we should use 'gls' to be consistent with xliff ...should prefix registraton be independant of xliff tc?
ct: should probably be coordinated with the xliff tc
df: to be indepenadant from xliff tc we would have to take out of oasis, which could be difficult ...there is need for coordination so should formally ask them ...demand registerd prefixes don't use the separation character we choose
rve: my interpretation of json-ld is that it allows colons ...more like name normalization
df: the xliff tc reg mechanism should specify that it does not contain colon ...as colon in prefixes would create issues also for the xml implementation, it's a reasonable thing to request.. this process is outside of the standard, so can be easily modified
rve: next step for context that json-ld ...is there an xliff example to use as an example? df: back to topic of test suite ...don't have a very complex example ...test suite is pretty single responsibility type tests ...xliff examples are here: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/xliff/trunk/xliff-21/test-suite/modules/valid/#_trunk_xliff-21_test-suite_modules_valid_ ...the context helps to expand to fully qualified names ...ct, will you try to create the contex file?
ct: sure..
AI: ct to commit context file and robert to make changes to schema to reference the context file..
dF: New XLIFF examples will be available for feisgiltt on TAPICC GitHub repo.
TBX Mapping
df: no james, so skip
Other Liasons
df: TAPICC Track 2 and/or 3 probably not happen before March next year ...technically stable version of jliff by March 2018 seems so a good target timeframe.. It's encouraging to know that there are people waiting to use the technology..
XLIFF 2.1 ...cos01 approved by TC! should be published by OASIS next week..
FEISGILTT df: 31/10 and 01/11
ct: I've been working for the time being individually but I'll send copy to rve for sanity check
df: please help push registration on social media https://locworld.com/events/feisgiltt2017/
Next Meeting
Skipping 24 October as df not vailable 14 November next meeting with probable quorum Last meeting of year 12 December
Meeting adjourned
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members
|
| Achieved quorum |
yes |
| Individual Attendance |
Contributing Members: 4 of 19 (21%)
Voting Members: 4 of 6 (66%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Contributing Companies: 4 of 14 (28%)
Voting Companies: 4 of 6 (66%)
|