- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:30:40 -0700
- To: <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Hi David, The text looks fine to me. -yves -----Original Message----- From: Jörg Schütz [mailto:joerg@bioloom.de] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:18 AM To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org 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: 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-comme >>>> 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 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 11:31:14 UTC