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

RE: [Issue-75] - Domain

From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:15:44 +0100
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, Pablo Nieto Caride <pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>
CC: "public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8EA44C66E2911C4AB21558F4720695DC60D7FCDE1D@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp>
Hi Felix, Pablo, all,

Please find some my thoughts on the reply below.


-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2013 08:07
To: Pablo Nieto Caride
Cc: Lieske, Christian; public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Issue-75] - Domain

(trying to minimize the number of mails, hence replying to several 
aspects in this mail)

Hi Christian, Pablo, all,

at Christian: you write at

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?

CL>> Currently, I consider 2a as being unresolved.
CL>> Addressing 2a (capture the information "This is for component X") to me does not appear to be straightforward, since
CL>> you would need to accommodate an addition piece of information. One could imagine representations such as
CL>> 	<its:domainRule ... 
CL>>		domainMapping=
CL>>			'MT-engine-X,"automotive auto, medical medicine, 'criminal law' law, 'property law' law"',
CL>>			 'TM-system-Y,"automotive X, 'criminal law' L, 'property law' law"'
CL>>      />
CL>> This, however, is not in line with the current normative text on "domain".

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).

CL>> How about the following additional paragraph for the first note in (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#domain) for 2b?
CL>> "domainMapping" even allows "domain" systems/hierarchies to be encoded. domainMapping="FIN, 'A A-1 A-1-X'" could for example be used to capture the following information:
CL>> a. There exists a domain system that includes domains (e.g. A), sub-domains (e.g. A-1), and sub-subdomains (e.g. A-1-X)
CL>> b. Prefer the lowest level in the system (e.g. work with an MT engine for A-1-X if available, otherwise work with one for A-1 or even A if available)
CL>> This "power to encode and to interpret" is similar to matching of language tags, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.2. 
CL>> "Language tag matching is a tool, and does not by itself specify a  complete procedure for the use of language tags ...
CL>> The matching specification itself makes clear that it there are many 
CL>> 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.

Wrt to 1 (local domain): would this also be relevant for other 
implementers of domain (asking again)?



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 11:16:13 UTC

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