W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-ws@w3.org > February 2003

Re: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...

From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:40:08 -0800
Message-ID: <020d01c2cbcc$d37f7df0$79de2b09@DAVIS1>
To: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
Cc: <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>

Well, there are two issues here: terminology and contents.

Terminology

As far as terminology goes, I believe it is very dangerous to use the
'naked' term "locale", since the usage varies so widely. Even in your own
messages sometimes you appear to mean tags, sometimes data, sometimes
conventions. And the meaning of a given message can vary widely depending on
which interpretation the reader gives to it. This will only give rise to
misunderstandings on a very core issue.

For clarity, certainly in the working group discussion, we should always
have fully-qualified names, and say "locale data", or "locale settings",
etc. Otherwise we don't really know what we are agreeing or disagreeing on.

Contents.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for the open-ended approach to locale
tags. Having such a structure would allow people to interchange more
information that is relevant to cultural expectations.

As in the example given earlier, I would like to be able to communicate the
settings that use en-US conventions typically, but then have a date format
of "yyyy.MM.dd".

But such an open stucture still needs careful definition or else it is
useless (or worse) across different systems. This is tricky when faced with
the variation among different OSes and other systems. Take the subtag for
collation, for example. What are the values, and how is the standard
determined? Even for *binary* unicode comparison there are two choices in
use: UTF-16 order and UTF-8 (= UTF-32) order. And when we get into
language-sensitive collation, which one is meant? Java's? Window's?
Solaris's? Which version of that system?

Or is it always a "best effort", and thus not consistent across platforms
(or versions of the same platform)?

I do see some relationship with what we are doing in terms of locale data
for the OpenI18n locale repository (currently hosted on the ICU site, but to
move soon), since it faces the same kinds of issues.
http://oss.software.ibm.com/icu/locale/
http://oss.software.ibm.com/cvs/icu/~checkout~/locale/locale_data_markup.htm
l

Mark
________
mark.davis@jtcsv.com
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
fax: (408) 256-0799

----- Original Message -----
From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
Cc: <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:45
Subject: RE: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...


>
> There are fundamental problems in getting agreement on what a locale
actually is.
>
> Personally, I fall most closely into camp #1 on your list. Although I
acknowledge the other items there are completely valid, I think there is
some value for this group in taking a narrow view of what a locale is. My
version of #1 is:
>
> "A locale is a collection of settings related to regional or cultural
preferences. As a collection, it is an abstraction of a specific "cultural
preferences" or "regional settings" for use by computer systems, not meant
as a perfect model of an individual's preferences. Locales provide software
developers with the means of writing software that expresses itself in the
most appropriate way for a given set of users."
>
> Thus my preference for talking about "locale tags" or "i18n context
identifiers" instead of "locales". Once we start down the path of closely
defining a locale, we end up having to deal with the different locale models
extant, the differing implementation details, dissatisfaction with the
assumptions behind locales such as their lack of personalization, etc. Is
this necessary to create internationalized Web services? I don't believe it
is.
>
> In fact, it might be counter-productive.
>
> Among the models for Web services platforms is the "pure WS environment",
in which developers directly author Web services for the purpose of being a
Web service. It might be possible create and describe an "Internet locale
model" that takes the full range of issues into account in this case.
>
> Another model is the "wrapper" model, in which Web service provider
products wrap existing business logic in Web services. In this case I think
it would be best that they way you author a "Web service" be analogous if
not identical to how you write "regular" logic. Or, another way: your
regular logic will work as designed when you turn it into a WS.
>
> Thus, by ignoring what the "locale container" actually "contains", I think
we could create platform neutral "locale and i18n preferences" to enable
multi-locale support. More importantly, I think we could sell the result to
WS standardizers and implementers who don't care what a locale is (or isn't)
and have a vested interest in their existing systems (and locales).
>
> ~Addison
>
> NB> The foregoing is a personal view, not one currently endorsed by the
WSTF.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@jtcsv.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:03 AM
> > To: Addison Phillips [wM]
> > Cc: public-i18n-ws@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...
> >
> >
> > >Basically, the discussion revolved around the problem of passing
locales
> > ...
> > >What we're talking about here aren't locales, though, but locale tags
or
> >
> > By the bare word "locale", people can mean *many* different things, as
you
> > did so in your two recent messages. I think part of the problem is that
we
> > have to be a bit more precise in our language (myself included).
> >
> > Someone could mean by "locale" any of the following:
> >
> > 1. "locale conventions" - a set of conventions for doing something
(scope*
> > unclear, but usually includes sorting order; breaks ("character", word,
> > line, sentence); formatting dates, times, numbers, currency; etc.)
> > *open issue: how far does this go? religious preference, aisle vs
window,
> > kosher vs vegetarian??
> > http://oss.software.ibm.com/cvs/icu/~checkout~/locale/locale_data_
> > markup.htm
> > l
> >
> > 2. "locale domain" - set of people that commonly (though not always*)
use
> > the same locale conventions
> > *example: I use mostly US conventions, but use 2003-02-21 date
> > format on my
> > computer
> >
> > 3. "locale data" - a set of data supporting operations in #2
> > (e.g. "January")
> >
> > 4. "application locale data" - a set of data used to support localized
> > versions of a program.
> > (e.g. "Put the candle back")
> >
> > 5. "locale ID" - a short tag used for identifying a locale (one or more
of
> > the above)
> > ...
> > and perhaps more.
> >
> > The names above are just off the top of my head. But spending a
> > little time
> > to come up with good, unambiguous terms for what we are
> > discussing would be
> > time well spent!
> >
> > Back to the other topic:
> >
> > > If you are making a WS out of an existing method or function call, it
> > > shouldn't be necessary to pass said method a locale unless the design
of
> > > the method (e.g. the parameter list) really calls for it.
> >
> > This I agree with; an example would make it clear. That is, a WS that
> > computed standard deviations would not expect to be passed a locale. A
WS
> > that spell-checked or sorted, would.
> >
> > Mark
> > ________
> > mark.davis@jtcsv.com
> > IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
> > (408) 256-3148
> > fax: (408) 256-0799
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
> > To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
> > Cc: <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 20:53
> > Subject: Re: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > There is a certain amount of elision in the notes, I'm afraid.
> > >
> > > Basically, the discussion revolved around the problem of passing
locales
> > > to a WS: when should the WS designer need to deal with it (by
specifying
> > > the locale in the parameter list of the actual service or in the
Message
> > > definition in the WSDL) and when not.
> > >
> > > Passing a locale explicitly is, as you note, a good idea when the
locale
> > > has a natural or reasonable place in the "service contract". But it is
a
> > > poor choice when the service isn't necessarily locale affected ("add
two
> > > integer values"). Many if not most services fall into this latter
> > > category, IMO.
> > >
> > > That isn't to say that there are no cases for passing a locale.
> > >
> > > If one does a careful job of designing the data structures and service
> > > contract, generally one does not want a locale. You may need explicit
> > > facets of a locale (a language for natural language processing, a
> > > currency, a country code, etc. etc.), but not that many data
structures
> > >   need an explicit locale, even as an override value.
> > >
> > > There are lots of counter examples.
> > >
> > > So that note should say something more like:
> > >
> > > If you are making a WS out of an existing method or function call, it
> > > shouldn't be necessary to pass said method a locale unless the design
of
> > > the method (e.g. the parameter list) really calls for it.
> > >
> > > A lot more discussion (much of it off list, alas) goes with that, all
of
> > > which fell under the rubric of "agreed about the nature of
> > passing etc..."
> > >
> > > Sorry the notes make this difficult to follow.
> > >
> > > Addison
> > >
> > > Mark Davis wrote:
> > > >>o General agreement: passing locale explicitly is a poor choice for
> > > >
> > > > designing a WS. We agreed about the nature of passing locale and
> > programming
> > > > model.
> > > >
> > > > I am a bit uneasy about this. There are times when it is ok
> > to depend on
> > a
> > > > 'global' locale. But it is subject to many of the general problems
of
> > global
> > > > variables. What we chose to do in Java was to have both a 'global'
> > setting,
> > > > and to be able to explicitly pass in locales wherever necessary.
(The
> > > > architecture predated thread-locale storage in Java, otherwise
storing
> > on a
> > > > thread basis would have been better that global to the entire
address
> > space.
> > > > But notice that having explicit locales available makes it
> > possible for
> > > > people to write cover methods that do use thread-locale storage.)
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > > ________
> > > > mark.davis@jtcsv.com
> > > > IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
> > > > (408) 256-3148
> > > > fax: (408) 256-0799
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
> > > > To: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>;
> > > > <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 18:05
> > > > Subject: RE: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Attending: Kentaroh, Deb, Martin, Tex, Addison [chair, scribe]
> > > >>Regrets: Mike, Takao
> > > >>
> > > >>Actions:
> > > >>
> > > >> o Deb: to follow up with Noji following this call
> > > >> o Martin, Addison: Find out who WS-Transactionality is. Possibly
> > consider
> > > >
> > > > liasion.
> > > >
> > > >> o Addison: Explore charter modification with Richard
> > > >> o Tex: create use case(s) for "must match requested locale"
> > > >> o Addison: create requirements document skeleton from
> > ULocale document.
> > > >> o Deb/Addison: looking at new WS docs from other W3C WGs to ensure
> > we're
> > > >
> > > > not missing anything
> > > >
> > > >>General discussion:
> > > >>
> > > >>Martin at WS meeting in Arizona. Any specific input would be
helpful.
> > > >
> > > > Martin has 30 minutes tomorrow in joint session.
> > > >
> > > >>Martin: Appreciated Deb's note on "context" keyword. Discussion of
> > context
> > > >
> > > > mechanism for WSDL. Deb thinks this will be defined (competing
> > proposals
> > > > exist). Exchange of contexts will be defined in WSDL and
> > elsewhere. Need
> > to
> > > > fit our proposals into this mechanism as it matures.
> > > >
> > > >>Note: WS-Choreography WG was started.
> > > >>
> > > >>--- no additional actions --- so we proceeded to discussion of
> > > >
> > > > locale/language negotiation:
> > > >
> > > >>o "context" definition across WS, not just for i18n.
> > > >>o "what" instead of "how" should be the starting part. IOW> we
should
> > work
> > > >
> > > > on "tags", not the exchange mechanism because we think that the
> > "context"
> > > > idea will be standardized elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > >>o General agreement that locale should not be explicit most
> > of the time.
> > > >>o General agreement: passing locale explicitly is a poor choice for
> > > >
> > > > designing a WS. We agreed about the nature of passing locale and
> > programming
> > > > model.
> > > >
> > > >>o General agreement: locale interpretation is a problem due
> > to disparate
> > > >
> > > > implementations (see Kentaroh's list)
> > > >
> > > >>    --how much alignment/precision is desirable?
> > > >>    --"tags" might take several forms:
> > > >>          i) tag
> > > >>         ii) structure/data
> > > >>        iii) urn (as a pointer to a) datafile
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Discussed what forms a good usage scenario: collation is a good
> > example..
> > > >
> > > > business rules a good example.. SQL statements with implicit
ordering
> > also
> > > > important. Example: "select all foo < ñ" (that's U+00F1, n-tilde)
> > > >
> > > >>Discussed reasons why "charset" might be useful or not. General
> > agreement
> > > >
> > > > that we want to use Unicode everywhere and that charset is an XPG4
> > legacy
> > > > value that might not have a place in WS locale negotiation.
> > > >
> > > >>   counter examples: WS container invokes XPG4 program in new
> > > >
> > > > thread-of-execution; JCA connection to XPG4 resource
> > > >
> > > >>Tex: wants to eliminate ambiguity of existing locale system.
> > Specifying
> > a
> > > >
> > > > locale and using fallbacks may be problematic in some circumstances.
> > Need
> > > > something like a "must match" with default of false. Tex to create
use
> > case
> > > > for this.
> > > >
> > > >>Discussed why fallbacks are prone to failure, some are "sometimes
> > wrong",
> > > >
> > > > and sometimes best practices can work.
> > > >
> > > >>Deb: suppose that no one does anything. We should compare scenarios
in
> > > >
> > > > this area. Also: consider J2EE example of server-enforced locale.
> > > >
> > > >>Ultimately, we agreed on a "Goldilock's approach":
> > > >>   "As closely defined as we can make the locale tags, but as open
as
> > > >
> > > > possible."
> > > >
> > > >>Agreed that our next steps are to find agreement on the
> > requirements so
> > > >
> > > > that we can pursue standardization of a tagging scheme.
> > > >
> > > >>In particular we need to write requirements and *also* usage
> > scenarios.
> > > >
> > > > What is the general case? What is the usage case?
> > > >
> > > >>Group: Considered if we should modify our charter now to allow us to
> > > >
> > > > create this as a W3C Recommendation. Discussion ensued. Planned to
> > create
> > > > requirements in the next two weeks. We think that this document will
> > give us
> > > > enough guidance to decide whether to pursue a specific charter mod
or
> > > > whether to put this item to I18N-WG-Core or to WS-Arch.
> > > >
> > > >>Discussed idea of having FTF in Feb/Mar timeframe separate
> > from IUC and
> > in
> > > >
> > > > Boston area.
> > > >
> > > >>thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >>Addison
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>From: public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org
> > > >>>[mailto:public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Addison Phillips
> > [wM]
> > > >>>Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:04 PM
> > > >>>To: public-i18n-ws@w3.org
> > > >>>Subject: [I18N-WSTF] [REMINDER] Teleconference Tomorrow
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>W3C-I18N-WG Web Services TF teleconference [WSTF]
> > > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>-----------
> > > >>>Bridge   : +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim) with conference code 4186
> > > >>>(spells "I18N")
> > > >>>Duration : 60 minutes
> > > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>-----------
> > > >>>Day      : Tuesday
> > > >>>Dates    : 14, 28 January
> > > >>>Start    : 23:00 GMT, 18:00 Eastern, 15:00 Pacific, 08:00 Tokyo
> > > >>>(next day!)
> > > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>-----------
> > > >>>Zakim information    : http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
> > > >>>Zakim bridge monitor : http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.html
> > > >>>Zakim IRC bot        : http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
> > > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>-----------
> > > >>>
> > > >>>REMINDER: the next scheduled teleconference for the WSTF is
> > > >>>tomorrow. If you have not used the W3C teleconference bridge
> > > >>>previously, please review the links above for instructions (it's
> > > >>>very easy).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>SUMMARY: This is an important meeting. We'll be reviewing
> > > >>>activities related to people's positions regarding locales and
> > > >>>language negotiation. Deb and I have both sent positions to the
> > > >>>list. Please review these, as they'll be the main topic. If you
> > > >>>intend to send something for consideration, you should do it
quickly.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I have reserved 9 total slots on the bridge. Since we've picked
> > > >>>up in attendence, I'm keeping the number steady for now.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Agenda
> > > >>>=============================
> > > >>>           o Discuss Agenda.
> > > >>>           o Discuss Action Items.
> > > >>>           o Discuss next FTF meeting. Tentatively at IUC23
> > in Prague.
> > > >>>           o Activity to take on locales and languages.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Pending Action Items
> > > >>>====================
> > > >>>1. Martin: will follow up with Russ Rolfe in case MS has any
> > > >>>space in Prague for an FTF. This is a low priority item.
> > > >>>2. Team: write up and send to list a "position" on the locale
> > > >>>problem (See notes below for what that means). Due prior to next
> > > >>
> > > > meeting.
> > > >
> > > >>>3. Deb: send specific comments on WSUS to list.
> > > >>>4. Addison: post tentative calendar of activities for year.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Usage Scenarios Working Draft
> > > >>>=============================
> > > >>>Can be reviewed here:
> > > >>>http://www.w3.org/International/ws/ws-i18n-scenarios-edit
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Talk to you then!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Best Regards,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Addison
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Addison P. Phillips
> > > >>>Director, Globalization Architecture
> > > >>>webMethods, Inc.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>+1 408.962.5487  mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com
> > > >>>-------------------------------------------
> > > >>>Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Chair, W3C I18N WG Web Services Task Force
> > > >>>http://www.w3.org/International/ws
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Addison P. Phillips
> > > Director, Globalization Architecture
> > > webMethods, Inc.
> > >
> > > +1 408.962.5487  mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > > Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.
> > >
> > > Chair, W3C I18N WG Web Services Task Force
> > > http://www.w3.org/International/ws
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 18:36:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:52 GMT