W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > January 2013

Re: [Issue-75] - Domain

From: Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:09:38 +0100
Message-ID: <50F67C62.2020300@bioloom.de>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: Pablo Nieto Caride <pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>, "'Lieske, Christian'" <christian.lieske@sap.com>, public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Hi Felix, Christian, Pablo, and all,

The encoding (markup) of local domain information can be facilitated in 
different ways with the already existing mechanisms of the terminology 
and disambiguation features of ITS if the foreseen "pointing" approach 
might be not sufficient enough for the information producing 
application. These features would also allow for a particular predefined 
selection which might be ignored, interpreted, or even overwritten by 
the information consuming application.

Besides the mentioned (machine) translation application, (language) 
stream analytics, and business intelligence applications would benefit 
from the described "mixed" markup scenario.

Given the discussion so far, I would assume that by now comments (1), 
(2a), and (2b) are resolved.

All the best -- Jörg

On Jan 16, 2013, at 08:06 (CET), Felix Sasaki wrote:
> (trying to minimize the number of mails, hence replying to several
> aspects in this mail)
>
> Hi Christian, Pablo, all,
>
> at Christian: you write at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0034.html
>
> that 2b of your comment is resolved. How about 2a? If you are not
> satisfied with the replies in this thread, could you propose a change to
> the spec?
>
> Wrt to your proposal below (add a note about 2b to the spec): sure, do
> you want to draft something? The same for 2a (if you don't have a
> specific solution in mind, stating the issue might already be helpful).
>
> Wrt to 1 (local domain): would this also be relevant for other
> implementers of domain (asking again)?
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 15.01.13 19:32, schrieb Pablo Nieto Caride:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Felix, I think that a local domain could be interesting, at least WP4
>> client would be happy with that, I don't know what the others think.
>>
>> Christian, regarding the domain mapping I think that Yves and Felix
>> are right, you can implement your own mapping, you can adapt it to
>> specific MT if you want, as for the example <its:domainRule
>> selector="/h:html/h:body" ... domainMapping="FIN, 'A A-1 A1-A1X'"/>, I
>> certain MT Systems can manage the precedence by themselves.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pablo.
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if it would be good idea to add the scenario I have provided
>> (domain "system") and Felix' information on how to approach it (namely
>> similar to language tag matching) to one of the "notes" that currently
>> are in place for in the "domain" section.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Christian
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: christian.lieske@sap.com
>> Sent: Dienstag, 15. Januar 2013 08:10
>> To: 'Felix Sasaki'; public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: [Issue-75] - Domain
>>
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> I follow your line of thought related to the similarities between
>> "domainMapping" and matching of language tags. Thus, it would be OK
>> for me to consider 2.b of
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0022.html
>> closed.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Christian
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Sent: Montag, 14. Januar 2013 19:27
>> To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [Issue-75] - Domain
>>
>> Hi Christian, Yves, all,
>>
>> Am 14.01.13 16:52, schrieb Yves Savourel:
>>> Hi Christian, all,
>>>
>>>
>>> CL>> It seems as if I didn't manage to my point about this aspect of
>>> "domain" is clear.
>>> CL>> Let me to try to provide a remedy by adding to my original comment:
>>> CL>> Something like its-domain="financials" could not just be imagined
>>> CL>>to work in  a global rule (e.g. instead of a pointer); in
>>> addition, a local use of "domain"
>>> CL>> could be imagined
>>> CL>>    Global: <its:domainRule selector="/h:html/h:body"
>>> its-domain="financials">
>>> CL>>    Local: <em its-domain="financials">IMF</em>
>>>
>>> So (If I'm getting this right) you'd like a way to override the
>>> domain for spans of content? (Since the Dublin Core in HTML doesn't
>>> let you do that (the subject is define at the document level)).
>>>
>>> I think one of the reasons I hear early on was that today it would be
>>> difficult to make that distinction at the MT level. But I suppose MT
>>> engine selection is not the only application for domain. Maybe others
>>> have additional reason why we don't have a local domain?
>> Given the implementation driven approach we have made so far I would
>> ask: is there an implementation on the horizon that would process
>> local domain?
>>
>>>
>>> CL>> Why do you think that the scenario that I sketch (multiply domain
>>> CL>> "systems" used in a processing chain) implies that a standard
>>> exists?
>>> CL>> I would rather think that the implication is the other way round:
>>> CL>> Since there is no standard, there is a need to accommodate
>>> heterogeneity.
>>>
>>> I agree, but so far that has not been part of the scope of ITS.
>>>
>>>
>>> CL>> I guess your point is valid in the sense that one could go for
>>> CL>> something like <its:domainRule selector="/h:html/h:body" ...
>>> CL>> domainMapping="FIN, 'A A-1 A1-A1X'"/>.
>>> CL>> However, this would require that additional information would have
>>> CL>> to be captured elsewhere (so that for example, the precedence
>>> CL>> 'A > A-1 > A1-A1X' could be captured).
>>>
>>> ITS doesn't prescribe what the right part of the mapping must be or
>>> how it should be used.
>>> It's really just a way to allow user-defined mechanisms to be
>>> connected to the input metadata.
>>> I suppose it is also beyond the scope of ITS.
>> As I understand Christian he does not ask to prescripe a mapping, but
>> "to accomodate for heterogeneity": allow people to formulate their own
>> mapping.
>>
>> I think we do that: we don't make the usage of the mapping attribute
>> mandatory. It is an optional attribute. If "our" mapping algorithm
>> doesn't respond to a specific mapping approach, everybody can implement
>> his own mapping.
>>
>> This is similar to matching of language tags, see
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.2
>> "Language tag matching is a tool, and does not by itself specify a
>> complete procedure for the use of language tags.  Such procedures are
>> intimately tied to the application protocol in which they occur."
>> The matching specification itself makes clear that it there are many
>> aspects that are left out for actually using language tags. But having
>> no matching at all would be even less interoperability, hence the
>> "imperfect" matching scheme.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> -yves
>>>
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 10:09:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:26 UTC