• Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 431 subscribers
  • Views 2308 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Local file-based translation memory maintenance - A request/suggestion

Claudio Nasso

Good morning to all.

A question/proposal/idea, if it is possible.

Should it be possible to foresee in Translation Memory View (when opening/editing a *.sdltm file) the same "Spell checking" function we use for bilingual *.sdlxliff file in the Editor View (Review > Spell checking).

It should be useful when maintaining an existing local file-based TM which refers to several bilingual *.sdlxliff files (same client/project/etc.)

Moreover, what about a sort of "Merge entries" function similar to that of MultiTerm to "group" more than one entry under the same source/target entry. Sometimes a source entry might have a (slight) different target translation, depending on surrounding context.

This is just a proposal and not a substantial issue... Obviously, all we can survive without them...  [H]

Thank you.

Claudio
Rate translation
×
Suggest better translation
×
Moderator UI
×
  • Get AI Suggestion
Parents

  • Hi Claudio,

    Spell checking... I agree with you here.  That would be a useful addition, although you'd think translations were spelled correctly before they were entered into the TM.  You can handle this today by exporting to TMX, in bite sized chunks using the SDLTMConvert app from the OpenExchange and then create a QA project in Studio using the TMX files as translatable files, but connect the SDLTM you wish to check (without the update TM enabled).

    Now you QA the project, spellcheck it etc, and make any changes in the TM results window so you don't mess up any context codes and lose your CM matches.

    On the merge entries... I'm not sure I see the point of this.  The TM can hold same source different target already so why would you want to merge them?  This is the whole point of the Context Match feature.  Perhaps this article will be useful for you?

    Regards

    Paul

    Paul Filkin | RWS Group

    ________________________
    Design your own training!
    You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear? 
    Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub

Reply

  • Hi Claudio,

    Spell checking... I agree with you here.  That would be a useful addition, although you'd think translations were spelled correctly before they were entered into the TM.  You can handle this today by exporting to TMX, in bite sized chunks using the SDLTMConvert app from the OpenExchange and then create a QA project in Studio using the TMX files as translatable files, but connect the SDLTM you wish to check (without the update TM enabled).

    Now you QA the project, spellcheck it etc, and make any changes in the TM results window so you don't mess up any context codes and lose your CM matches.

    On the merge entries... I'm not sure I see the point of this.  The TM can hold same source different target already so why would you want to merge them?  This is the whole point of the Context Match feature.  Perhaps this article will be useful for you?

    Regards

    Paul

    Paul Filkin | RWS Group

    ________________________
    Design your own training!
    You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear? 
    Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub

Children
  • in reply to Paul
    Hi Paul,

    and thank you for your reply/comment.

    Concerning spell checking, I am happy to read that you consider the addition of the spell checking (Hunspell or MS Word) function, as it appears in the Editor View, a useful suggestion.
    Yes, you are right: we must suppose that the TM should be spelled correctly as, in fact, it is a consequence of the bilingual translated bilingual *.sdlxliff text, which we have reread and on which we have, probably, run the Editor View spellchecker. However, suppose we are willing to reopen a TM after, say, a couple of months to maintain and check it again without being forced to reopen the file(s) originating it. Your alternative suggestions are good and I share them, but they are a little bit more complicated if compared to the presence of a “direct spell checking” function on the TM file itself.

    Concerning my proposed merging entries issue, I have read your article and also here I agree with your considerations. Probably, I was driven by the concept of SDL MultiTerm (that I am using extensively).

    Thank you for your feedback/comments/suggestions.

    Regards,

    Claudio