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

RE: [Issue-75] - Domain

From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:53:43 +0100
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, "public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8EA44C66E2911C4AB21558F4720695DC60D7E5E815@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp>
Hi Yves, all,

It's great to see a timely reply to this comment. 

Please find some my thoughts on the reply below.

Cheers,
Christian
-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com] 
Sent: Samstag, 12. Januar 2013 03:00
To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Subject: [Issue-75] - Domain

Hi Christian, all,

> 1. As it stands, "domain" only allows "pointing". Some 
> scenarios may require a "direct encoding" (e.g. via something 
> like its-domain="financials")

I believe we touched on this early on. I think one of the reasons to not have local markup for Domain was that the Dublin Core was providing already a way to do this on several formats: we didn't want to re-invent what existed (one can just map to it like we do for HTML5).

CL>> It seems as if I didn't manage to my point about this aspect of "domain" is clear. 
CL>> Let me to try to provide a remedy by adding to my original comment:
CL>>
CL>> Something like its-domain="financials" could not just be imagined to work in a global rule (e.g. instead of a pointer); in addition, a local use of "domain" could be imagined
CL>>	Global: <its:domainRule selector="/h:html/h:body" its-domain="financials">
CL>>	Local: <em its-domain="financials">IMF</em>
CL>>
CL>> Aside: Be assured that I fully support the current ITS 2.0 thinking to (re)use domain information (e.g. given in HTML with Dublin Core mechanisms).

> 2. Currently, "domain" does not seem to take into account the 
> following realities that I have seen
> 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.

This implies that there is some standard of the different components of the processing chain.
Is there?

CL>> Why do you think that the scenario that I sketch (multiply domain "systems" used in a processing chain) implies that a standard exists?
CL>> I would rather think that the implication is the other way round: Since there is no standard, there is a need to accommodate heterogeneity.

> b. Implementations that work with domain information often apply concepts 
> that sometimes are termed "fallback", "secondary component", or the like.
> Example: A Terminology Management component that is used for automated 
> term lookup may encode a rule such as "Search in domain A-A1-A1X and 
> all its ancestors (ie. also A-A1 and A). Hits from domains deeper in 
> the hierarchy should receive a higher score than hits further up - thus,
> a hit from A would receive a lower score than a hit from A-A1-A1X".
> This currently cannot be addressed due to the modeling 
> chosen for "domainMapping".

I reckon a given user could use domainMapping to map the original domain name to such composite code and behave like you describe, no? ITS doesn't define how to use the mapped label, only how to map it.
Do you have another option in mind?

CL>> I guess your point is valid in the sense that one could go for something like <its:domainRule selector="/h:html/h:body" ...  domainMapping="FIN, 'A A-1 A1-A1X'"/>.
CL>> However, this would require that additional information would have to be captured elsewhere (so that for example, the precedence 'A > A-1 > A1-A1X' could be captured).

cheers,
-yves






Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 14:54:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 January 2013 14:54:16 GMT