W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > April to June 2005


From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:31:52 +0900
Message-ID: <42B14708.8060407@w3.org>
To: Andrzej Zydron <azydron@xml-intl.com>
Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org

Hi Andrej,

Thanks for the links, I already had a look in the PDF and the PPT before 
I wrote the mail to you.

> CAM is not just about NOUN definitions. CAM can define 
> BusinessUseContext rules, DataValidations, ContentReference rules as 
> well as Assembly structures. All very powerful and flexible.

I saw the mechanisms you're mentioning, also the list of predicates you 
pointed me to. I'm just not sure of the interplay between all these. I 
also had a look at the CAM specification
But it didn't make things clearer to me.

> My current understanding (still incomplete) of CAM is that it should 
> provide a sufficient vocabulary 

Is it a vocabulary? or rather a set of predicates with some processing 

> to be able to describe semantically the requirements for 
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0505Translatability, 
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0505ReqAttrAndTrans, 
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0505WordCount and possibly provide a 
> mechanism for http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0505LimitImpact. It would do 
> this via an external CAM XML definition document that would be 
> applicable to a given DTD/XSD type, and/or individual document 
> instance. This decouples the problem of an ITS tag set for the above 
> topics from embedding and the intendant problems.
I'm just worried about the mass of problems CAM seems to try to solve at 
the same time. Could you come up with an example, as simple as possible? 
E.g. you have an XHTML document like

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
 xmlns:its="http://www.example.org/its" xml:lang="en" lang="en"
 <head><title its:translate="no">World News - 2 May 2005</title>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
  <h1 its:translate="no">World News - 2 May 2005</h1> ...
  <p><its:span lofinfo="this needs special treatment">...</its:span></p>

and you want to validate it against an DTD for XHTML, and you have a 
XSLT stylesheet which relies on a <p> element without child elements 
from another namespace than "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml". How would 
you describe validation and XSLT transformation processes with CAM? It 
would be great to have such an example, so that we also could use if for 
the EXTREME article.

Best, Felix.

> I need to spend a lot more time with CAM before I could say for 
> certain whether it would be a viable solution, but there appear to be 
> some very good things within the CAM specification that are worth 
> investigating further.
> Best Regards,
> AZ
> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> Hi Andrzej,
>> I had a look at CAM [1] which you talked about yesterday at the 
>> telecon. It seems to be that it CAM is made for the augmentation of 
>> schemas with additional information. One kind of information can be 
>> used to describe the relations of element and attribute names from 
>> different namespaces to an external knowledge base of names, in the 
>> CAM terminology "nouns". I'm not sure if that solves our problems, 
>> for example to avoid impact of ITS on existing markup schemes and 
>> documents, e.g. problems with XPath etc. What we need is a way to 
>> describe the relations of markup A from namespace to markup from 
>> namespace B, to be able to say s.t. "For this processing step,  
>> IMAGINE that <html:span> is equal to <its:span>." With CAM, this 
>> seems to be possible through the "nouns" knowledge base, and there 
>> seems to be no mechanism to process "IMAGINE". Also it seems that 
>> there is not very much happening in the TC, the spec. was from 2004, 
>> and i didn't found many implemenations / applications.
>> I just had a quick look into this, so maybe my impression is wrong 
>> that this doesn't solve our problems. What do you think? Do you have 
>> more material?
>> Best, Felix.
>> [1] /www.*oasis*-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=*cam*/
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 09:31:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:04 UTC