- From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:16:43 +0000
- To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org, Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Hi co-editors, the note as formulated below by Christian has been OKed by all stakeholders, now we are looking for a co-editor volunteer to implement this into the spec in order to be able to close the issue. I will create the editorial action for you to keep track if you volunteer :-) Thanks 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 Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote: > 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 14:17:55 UTC