<entry id="2181255" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>2853907</ent_seq>
<r_ele>
<reb>ドラキュラマット</reb>
</r_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>ドラキュラ・マット</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<xref type="see" seq="2853908">ドリップ吸水シート</xref>
<lsource ls_wasei="y">Dracula mat</lsource>
<gloss>absorbent sheet (used in meat packs, sushi boxes, etc.)</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2022-03-06 23:57:31" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Anthony Russo</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>According to the reference, the technical term was ドリップ吸水シート, but the submitted term became more popular.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>「モノのなまえ辞典」 (ISBN: 9784591164211) pg. 32</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2022-03-07 20:17:36" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_refs>https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%AD%E3%83%A5%E3%83%A9%E3%83%9E%E3%83%83%E3%83%88
www images</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -6,0 +7,3 @@
+&lt;r_ele&gt;
+&lt;reb&gt;ドラキュラ・マット&lt;/reb&gt;
+&lt;/r_ele&gt;
@@ -9 +12,2 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;absorbent sheet (found in meat packs, sushi boxes, etc.)&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;lsource ls_wasei="y"&gt;Dracula mat&lt;/lsource&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;absorbent sheet (used in meat packs, sushi boxes, etc.)&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2022-03-12 00:04:30" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Anthony Russo</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Apologies if I'm not understanding how cross-references work, but if one entry points to another (via 'See also:...'), then shouldn't that other one point back via 'See also:...' as well? Hence this suggested edit.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -11,0 +12,2 @@
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="2853908"&gt;ドリップ吸水シート&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="2853908"&gt;ドリップ吸水シート&lt;/xref&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2022-03-12 00:41:49" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Not necessarily. In this case, I don't think a reverse one is appropriate.</upd_detl>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>