Re: [Issue-75] - Domain

Hi Christian, Jörg, all,

co-chair hat on: I think the idea of "adding domain information" is 
clear, and Pablo said it could be useful for his customer, and Yves said 
it could be useful for XLIFF mapping.
So we can move this topic to the next stage: who from the implementers 
for domain
would implement local domain, and who thinks (this question is important 
too) that this is worth a delay?

Co-chair hat of, and replying to your proposal at
(replying here so that we have only one thread)


CL>>>>> I understand the point. My suggestion would be to refine the requirement for the revised domainMapping that I sketched: the information about the target environment/engine is optional.
CL>>>>> Thus, you could have the following:
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>>>>>   "automotive Z, 'criminal law' C, 'property law' law"'  <---- here is the change (no info about the target environment/engine)
CL>>>>> />
CL>>>>> Aside: I am a bit unsure how realistic the scenario "specify domainMapping without knowing the engine/environment" is.


Making the engine information optional doesn't solve the problem I 
- domainMapping expresses "choose MT-engine-X"
- it also expresses "map the domain 'automotive' to 'auto'
- later in the workflow there are several engines available: 
MT-engine-X, MT-engine-Y
- only MT-engine-Y knows about 'auto', so the "choose MT-engine-X" 
information from domainMapping disturbes the workflow

Wrt to 'I am a bit unsure how realistic the scenario "specify 
domainMapping without knowing the engine/environment" is. ': so far it 
was helpful for starting work on three implementations (if I count 
correctly) using domain information in MT workflows. See

It even has a benefit not to specify the engine: content can be prepared 
for processing of all these services. Since there is no need to 
acomodate "engine" information, the content can choose freely which 
engine works best - based purely on domain information.

So my questions to you, Christian, and to at least above three 
implementers would be: do you see implementers processing domain, who 
would be willing to contribute to testing the engine information? If not 
(again co-chair hat on) we don't have a use case on the group, it seems, 
and can't bring such a feature through the standardization process.



Am 17.01.13 16:07, schrieb Lieske, Christian:
> Hi Jörg, Felix, all,
> Unfortunately, I still don't understand, the current draft doesn't have provisions for
> CL>>    Global: <its:domainRule selector="/h:html/h:body" its-domain="financials">
> CL>>    Local: <em its-domain="financials">IMF</em>
> If we don't have these provisions, we may end up with the messy situation/solution that Jörg sketches.
> Cheers,
> Christian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Schütz []
> Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2013 15:28
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Issue-75] - Domain
> Hi Felix, Christian, and all,
> ITS should not be hijacked to take over the role of a workflow engine or
> similar application because there might be several consumers of ITS information...
> @Christian > [Could you provide one or two examples/proofs for this?]
> Here is an outline of my idea (which potentially also hijacks ITS to
> some extend):
> Possible ITS Application Scenario to Extend the "Domain" Data Category
> (1) Use (general) domain pointing for the broad classification of your
> content (global reach), i.e. employ the domain data categroy.
> (2) In cases where (1) is either too general (broad), or you want to
> further classify only parts of your content (local reach), use the
> disambiguation data category. This includes the further classifying of a
> sequence of strings which do not represent what usually is called a term
> (domain-specific vocabulary) or a multi-word unit (mwu).
> (3) For the term and mwu case use the terminology data category.
> Case (3) is applied as described in the ITS 2.0 specification; always
> consider to link to an appropriate authoritative internal or external
> terminology resource or ontology (e.g. Cyc, Snomed, MeSH, etc.) on which
> both producer and consumer have agreed upon (in this sense ITS is also
> part of a contract).
> In this scenario, case (2) is a bit trickier because "officially"
> disambiguation is also applied to meaningful string sequences, i.e. a
> word or a mwu, as in the terminology case, but now we extend this data
> category to arbitary elements, for example an entire paragraph, with the
> restriction that the attributes disambigConfidence and particularly
> disambigGranularity have a broader meaning such as the conceptual
> association to a domain's root element or to certain upper model elements.
> HTML Example (local)
> ...
> <p><span its-disambig-confidence="0.9"
> its-disambig-class-ref="">
>      Ambroxol has mucolytic and local-anaesthetic pharmacological effects
>      </span>.
> </p>
> ...
> Note: In this example, only the disambigClassRef attribute is used to
> account for the "broader" employment of the data category.
> This use case scenario might sound like a bootstrap paradox... but this
> is one possibility of using ITS 2.0 ... ;-)
> All the best -- Jörg
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 14:23 (CET), Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> Am 16.01.13 12:15, schrieb Lieske, Christian:
>>> Hi Felix, Pablo, all,
>>> Please find some my thoughts on the reply below.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Christian
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Felix Sasaki []
>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2013 08:07
>>> To: Pablo Nieto Caride
>>> Cc: Lieske, Christian;
>>> 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>>      />
>> Such a specification of the engine could lead to conflicting information:
>> MT-engine-X has a module for automotive. If however the engine is not
>> mentioned in a domain mapping, but a different one (which does not have
>> the automotive module): which one to choose?
>> It looks like what you add as information (= choosing the engine) is
>> something one would do after the domain mapping, not at the same time.
>> Otherwise you may run into the conflict described above.
>>> 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 ( for 2b?
>>> CL>>
>>> 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:
>> Would it be OK to re-formulate that sentence above like this:
>> [
>> the domainMapping attribute does not itself specify how to encode
>> "domain" systems/hierachies. An application using domainMapping hence is
>> free to work with application specific hierarchies to capture
>> information like:
>> ]
>> It seems this is more in line with the language tag example: it is
>> saying that applications can do things that are on purpose underspecified.
>>> 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>>
>>> CL>> This "power to encode and to interpret" is similar to matching of
>>> language tags, see
>>> 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.
>> Best,
>> Felix
>>> Wrt to 1 (local domain): would this also be relevant for other
>>> implementers of domain (asking again)?
>> About this one: we have Pablo and Yves saying in separate mails this
>> might be of interest - enough to get through the w3c process. But is it
>> worth another last call period?
>> Best,
>> Felix
>>> 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:
>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 15. Januar 2013 08:10
>>>> To: 'Felix Sasaki';
>>>> 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
>>>> closed.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Christian
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Felix Sasaki []
>>>> Sent: Montag, 14. Januar 2013 19:27
>>>> To:
>>>> 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
>>>> "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 Thursday, 17 January 2013 17:26:32 UTC