![]() ![]() Two other sources of differences are bug fixes and new features. The cells in green indicate same syntax than in 2.9 and the numbers refer to Xbench 3.0 builds, not the evolution of regular expressions in the Middle Ages: Search The following table reflects this inconsistency and the syntax variation through versions. However, apparently they stopped halfway through: they only rolled back the change when it involved end-of-segment or end-of-word anchors. These parentheses are deemed unnecessary in the most common regular expression flavours, which may be why this change was reverted soon after. However, in version 3.0 it also finds telephone because after the syntax change the start-of-word operator ( In theory, the expression should only match phone or iphone. That is the situation in the example above. That is, when combined with the following operators: ?: Previous character is optional Luckily, the only operators affected are the word and segment anchors: : End of wordįurthermore, the differences only occur when these anchors are followed or preceded by a potentially empty expression. Before this build, the syntax was the same in 2.9 and 3.0. This change was introduced in Xbench 3.0 build 1216. The same expression may find different results in different versions: Changes in the syntax of regular expressionsĬhanges in the syntax of regular expressions.These differences come from three sources: However, some of their quality checks may not work as intended when moving from one version to another. Can the same checklist be used in 2.9 and 3.0?Īll checklist files can be imported into any other Xbench version. In any case, there is often the doubt of whether resources, especially checklists, can be shared between versions. It may also happen that a freelance translator starts using the free version to test its value before upgrading to 3.0. Its system of floating licenses is incredibly flexible and easy to use, but it is not hard to imagine that some members of the team may end up using the paid version while others may prefer to stick with the freeware. You can download both from Xbench’s official site. There are two main versions of Xbench: 2.9, which is freeware, and 3.0. For instance, you could code your whole style guide for Xbench to inform you of any non-compliance with a single click of a button. It also allows you to create your own quality checks, which are most powerful when you use regular expressions and store them in checklists. It ensures consistency, helps to comply with glossaries and other references, and acts as a safety net to minimise all-too-human errors. ApSIC Xbench is one of the best quality assurance tools for translators. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, December 2002. Technical Report CS-TR-2002-39, School of Computer Science. XBench - A Family of Benchmarks for XML DBMSs. Making Legacy Data Accessible for XML Applications. TPC Benchmark W (Web Commerce) Specification, Version 1.8. Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC).on Extending Database Technology, volume 1777 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 383-387. Grust, editors, Advances in Database Technology - EDBT 2000, Proc. Technical Report INS-R0103, CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 2001. Technical report, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, November 2000. KWEELT, the Making-of: Mistakes, Made and Lessons Learned. Technical report, University of Michigan, 2002. Technical Report CS-TR-2003- 24, School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, August 2003. Evaluation of DBMSs Using XBench Benchmark. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Knowledge Transformation Workshop, July 2002. Effective Schema Conversions between XML and Relational Models. Workshop on the World Wide Web and Databases (WebDB), pages 61-66, May 2001. Nesting-Based Relational-to-XML Schema Translation. on Database Programming Languages, pages 297- 323, September 1999. Ozone: Integrating Structured and Semistructured Data. ![]() Technical Report TR-02- 001, Universität Mannheim, January 2002. Anatomy of a Native XML Base Management System. on Management of Data, pages 623-634, June 2003. ![]() A Comprehensive XQuery to SQL Translation using Dynamic Interval Encoding. on Management of Data, pages 12-21, June 1993. Technical Report TR21/00, National University of Singapore, CS Department, November 2001. The X007 XML Management System Benchmark. Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition). German Database Conference (BTW), pages 264-273, March 2001. XMach-1: A Benchmark for XML Data Management. Workshop on the World Wide Web and Databases (WebDB), pages 49-54, June 2002. ToXgene: A Template-Based Data Generator for XML. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |