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

Re: CAM

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:55:45 +0900
Message-ID: <42B14CA1.7010502@w3.org>
To: Andrzej Zydron <azydron@xml-intl.com>
Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org

Hi Andrzei,

I would propose then that we have a reference to CAM in the paper, 
that's it. If there is a stable implementation later, we can make more 
use of CAM in the recommendation.

Best, Felix.

Andrzej Zydron wrote:

>
> 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*/
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 09:55:52 GMT

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