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

Hi David,

The text looks fine to me.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jörg Schütz [] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ISSUE-75] - Domain - 2.a. [ACTION-434]

Hi David,

I already gave my OK but here it is again.

Cheers -- Jörg

On Feb 27, 2013 at 12:10 (UTC+1), Dr. David Filip wrote:
> 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:
> 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
>>>> nts/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 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
>>>> _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 11:31:14 UTC