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

Re: CAM

From: Andrzej Zydron <azydron@xml-intl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:50:49 +0100
Message-ID: <42B14B79.6020407@xml-intl.com>
CC: public-i18n-its@w3.org

Hi Felix,

Felix Sasaki wrote:
> 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
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/5914/OASIS-CAM-Specifications-1_0-RC-017C-021904.doc 
> 
> But it didn't make things clearer to me.


Yes - it is not the most clear documentation in the world!


>>
>> 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 
> directives?

You are correct - it is about predicates and processing instructions


>> 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

This may be the main problem with CAM - its implementation is also 
predicated on the existence of a CAM processor, which may be the main 
mitigating factor against its use. There is a SourceForge site for a 
Java implementation of CAM:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/camprocessor but it is still at alpha 
stage. Without a standard freely available CAM processor, the 
specification is not really usable.


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

Unfortunately my knowledge of CAM is woefully insufficient to be able to 
provide an example!

Best Regards,

AZ

> 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*/
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 


-- 


email - azydron@xml-intl.com
smail - c/o Mr. A.Zydron
	PO Box 2167
         Gerrards Cross
         Bucks SL9 8XF
	United Kingdom
Mobile +(44) 7966 477 181
FAX    +(44) 1753 480 465
www - http://www.xml-intl.com

This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named.  If you are not the named addressee you
may not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.  The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.  If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Unless
explicitly stated otherwise this message is provided for informational
purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer.
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 09:50:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:45 GMT