[Issue-75] - Domain

Hi Christian, all,

> 1. As it stands, "domain" only allows "pointing". Some 
> scenarios may require a "direct encoding" (e.g. via something 
> like its-domain="financials")

I believe we touched on this early on. I think one of the reasons to not have local markup for Domain was that the Dublin Core was providing already a way to do this on several formats: we didn't want to re-invent what existed (one can just map to it like we do for HTML5).

> 2. Currently, "domain" does not seem to take into account the 
> following realities that I have seen
> 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.

This implies that there is some standard of the different components of the processing chain.
Is there?

> b. Implementations that work with domain information often apply concepts 
> that sometimes are termed "fallback", "secondary component", or the like.
> Example: A Terminology Management component that is used for automated 
> term lookup may encode a rule such as "Search in domain A-A1-A1X and 
> all its ancestors (ie. also A-A1 and A). Hits from domains deeper in 
> the hierarchy should receive a higher score than hits further up - thus,
> a hit from A would receive a lower score than a hit from A-A1-A1X".
> This currently cannot be addressed due to the modeling 
> chosen for "domainMapping".

I reckon a given user could use domainMapping to map the original domain name to such composite code and behave like you describe, no? ITS doesn't define how to use the mapped label, only how to map it.
Do you have another option in mind?


Received on Saturday, 12 January 2013 02:00:53 UTC