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

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.


Dr. David Filip
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Lieske, Christian
<> 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 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 []
> Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2013 09:37
> To:
> 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
> 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 []
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:55 AM
>>> To:
>>> 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 []
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:11 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: [ISSUE-75] - Domain - 2.a.
>>> Hi,
>>> One of my comments related to “domain” (see
>>> 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 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
>>> 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 UTC