RE: [Issue-75] - Domain

Hi Felix, Jörg, all,

Please find some my thoughts (CL>CL>) on the reply below.



From: Felix Sasaki []
Sent: Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2013 18:26
To: Lieske, Christian
Subject: 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 described:
- domainMapping expresses "choose MT-engine-X"

CL>CL> This is not what I had in mind as semantics for the first parameter of a list item in the revised “domainMapping”. To me, the semantics was “If you pass through MT-engine-X, then work with the following domain information”.

- 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.

CL>CL> I understand your point. I guess that slightly different assumptions/views on MT-related processes exist. The Uses Cases above from my point of view all pertain to “single engine” scenarios.
CL>CL> In this kind of scenario it is not really necessary to provide information “this is for engine X”. In a “multi-engine” scenarios, the situation is different. In order to see why, one first needs to
CL>CL> acknowledge that at least two flavors of “multi-engine” scenarios exist: multi-engine in pipeline (e.g. first X, then for anything below a confidence of 0.5 Y) vs. multi-engine exclusive (e.g. X for domain “financials”,
CL>CL> Y for domain “health”. In both scenarios, you need a mechanism to specify which domain information is for engine X, and which is for engine Y.

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.



-----Original Message-----

From: Jörg Schütz []

Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2013 15:28



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"


    Ambroxol has mucolytic and local-anaesthetic pharmacological effects




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.



-----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


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>> "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>> 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.



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?





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.




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,


-----Original Message-----


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




-----Original Message-----

From: Felix Sasaki []

Sent: Montag, 14. Januar 2013 19:27


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


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"


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


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


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


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.





Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 15:50:36 UTC