W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [ISSUE-75] - Domain - 2.a. [ACTION-434]

From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:10:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CANw5LKmbSj3EUAtk_GBc5Tq0_sZKbLhrbBvpHj5K_u9k68CpUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, "joerg@bioloom.de" <joerg@bioloom.de>
Cc: "public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Hi Christian, all,

we heard from Jan and Pablo that the text proposed by Christian to
resolve the Issue-75 works for them.
@Yves, @Jörg, I guess we need mainly the two of you to OK this to be
able close this one.

Rgds
dF

Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Lieske, Christian
<christian.lieske@sap.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had an action item to re-write the note related to "domainMapping" in "multi-engine" scenarios. Here is comes ...
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
> ==
> Although the focus of ITS 2.0, and some of the usage scenarios addressed in ITS 2.0 showcases (see http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary#ITS_2.0_Metadata:_Work-In-Context_Showcase) is on “single engine” environments, ITS 2.0 - for example in the context of the "domain" data category - can accommodate "workflow/multi engine" scenarios.
>
> Example:
>
> - A scenario involves Machine Translation (MT) engines A and B. The domain labels used by engine A follow the naming scheme A_123, the one for engine B follow the naming scheme B_456.
> - A "domainMapping" like the following is in place: domainMapping="'sports law' Legal, 'property law' Legal"
> - Engine A maps 'Legal' to A_4711, Engine B maps 'Legal' to B_42.
>
> Thus, ITS does not encode a process or workflow (like "Use MT engine A with domain A_4711, and use MT engine B with domain A_42"). Rather, it encodes information that can be used in workflows.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Schütz [mailto:joerg@bioloom.de]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2013 09:37
> To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [ISSUE-75] - Domain - 2.a. incl. 2.b. and 1.
>
> Hi Felix and all,
>
> Here is my suggestion for a note (native speakers please correct):
>
> Bear in mind that ITS is first and foremost a powerful markup technology
> to add metadata to (Web) content. In this sense, it is not a (direct)
> means to support, or even drive process or workflow engines, although
> some of the data categories like provenance, domain, domain mapping,
> etc. may induce such a view. Since this ITS metadata enhances the
> content in a structured way and in multiple forms, ITS consuming agents
> can employ that data to effectively implement their usage or deployment
> scenarios within single engine or single process environments as well as
> within multi-engine environments such as "try MT engine A, then MT
> engine B, ..." (see also ITS 2.0 showcases at
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary#ITS_2.0_Metadata:_Work-In-Context_Showcase).
> It is, however, not possible to assign, say, a specific domain mapping
> incarnation to a certain (process or workflow) instance because such an
> assignment concerns the process side, and this is beyond the current ITS
> metadata scope.
>
> With this, we now have apparently reached consensus on 2.a., 2.b.
> (already reviewed by Christian), and 1. (shepherd's view...)
>
> [@Yves: 1. is independent of the domain mapping specs.]
>
> Cheers -- Jörg
>
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 18:15 (CET), Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> Hi Jan, all,
>>
>> thanks a lot for the initial note, Christian, and for comments in this
>> thread. It seems that Yves made clear that
>>
>> “try MT engine A, then MT engine B”
>>
>> may indeed work with the ITS domain mechanism - but there is a lot of
>> white spaces including
>>
>> “try MT engine A with domain ‘financials’, then try MT engine B with
>> domain ‘healthcare’”
>> and layering of many other processing types. So maybe a final note could
>> concentrate on these white spaces? Anybody volunteering to re-write the
>> note?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> Am 29.01.13 17:15, schrieb Jan Nelson:
>>> I find it a reasonable practice to define what is not in scope as a
>>> part of any specification, though agree that clear statements of in
>>> scope features are crucial.
>>>
>>> I am curious about how a multi-engine selection/validation process
>>> works.  Christian, you mentioned both TM services as well as MT
>>> engines.  I can see value to be able to call from a set of services
>>> depending on domain with fallback based on result quality scores.  And
>>> you state that ITS 2.0 might be a single service scoped spec.
>>>
>>> Yves, you believe that there is support for more than one MT engine as
>>> currently spec'd.  My interest in the white spaces between the two
>>> comments are when layering n-services of differing processing types,
>>> e.g., fuzzy matching TM services versus statistical MT engine results
>>> and how that plays out.  It seems very ambitious to me to provide
>>> scope for this, and yet having a system that is capable of providing
>>> the kinds of metadata needed to enable it would be a pretty powerful
>>> in terms of the potential to provide hi-fi results.
>>>
>>> Maybe my comments are far out of scope, but the thread here caught my
>>> attention.  If this the case, I am happy to discuss it more offline,
>>> perhaps in Rome over a coffee.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Yves Savourel [ysavourel@enlaso.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:55 AM
>>> To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
>>> Subject: RE: [ISSUE-75] - Domain - 2.a.
>>>
>>> Hi Christian, all,
>>>
>>> I’m always a bit uncomfortable with stating what a mechanism is NOT
>>> doing in a specification. It seems we should be able to define what it
>>> does do and that should be sufficient.
>>>
>>> I would also argue that the scenario “try MT engine A, then MT engine
>>> B” can work perfectly well with what we have today. The specification
>>> provides domainMapping for some basic mappings that allow for example
>>> to point multiple keywords to a more common unique 'domain' label.
>>>
>>> For example you have a mapping as this: domainMapping="'sports law'
>>> Legal, 'property law' Legal"
>>> and two MT engines: they each have a user-defined table that provide
>>> additional re-direction (they are even possibly pair specific: one
>>> maps 'Legal' to 'LEGAL_EN_PT' and the other maps 'Legal' to
>>> '5242e0762354527_legal'.
>>>
>>> Using domainMapping for more than simple grouping is bound to have
>>> quick limitations:
>>>
>>> a) what if you add a third MT engine? You have to edit every single
>>> rules document to add the new mapping?
>>>
>>> b) how do you map to engine that are defined per pair?
>>>
>>> IMO the mapping to the values used to slect the MT engine belongs to
>>> the process side, not the input.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> -yves
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Lieske, Christian [mailto:christian.lieske@sap.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:11 AM
>>> To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
>>> Subject: [ISSUE-75] - Domain - 2.a.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> One of my comments related to “domain” (see
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0022.html)
>>> was the following:
>>>
>>> 2.a. Domain "systems" may not be harmonized across a processing chain.
>>> A Translation Memory component may for example work with different
>>> domains than a Machine Translation system that is part of the same
>>> processing chain. Since ITS 2.0 "domain" currently does not allow to
>>> capture the information "This is for component X" these scenarios
>>> cannot be addressed.
>>>
>>> During the face-to-face in Prague, we achieved the following status
>>> (see http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#item09): a note
>>> should explain that “domain” (and possibly other data categories) do
>>> not accommodate what could be called multi-engine scenario.
>>>
>>> Here is my suggestion for a note …
>>>
>>> The focus of ITS 2.0, and some of the usage scenarios addressed in ITS
>>> 2.0 showcases (see
>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary#ITS_2.0_Metadata:_Work-In-Context_Showcase)
>>> is on “single engine” environments. Example: the Machine Translation
>>> (MT) usage scenarios do not work along the lines of process chains
>>> such as “try MT engine A, then MT engine B”. Accordingly, ITS 2.0 has
>>> few provisions to support this kind of “multi-engine” environments
>>> which for example require domain-related information such as “try MT
>>> engine A with domain ‘financials’, then try MT engine B with domain
>>> ‘healthcare’”.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Christian
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 11:11:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 11:11:45 GMT