- From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:10:39 +0000
- 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 UTC