Re: [Issue-75] - Domain

Am 18.01.13 16:56, schrieb Lieske, Christian:
> Hi Jörg, all,
> Sorry that my example only worked with "simple" values. Sure would also allow for IRIs in "its-domain":

That would indeed by identical to the global usage, see here from the draft:

[ Values used in the |domainMapping| attribute are arbitrary strings. In 
some consumer systems or existing content, the domain may be identified 
via an IRI like ||. The 
|domainMapping| allows for using IRIs too. For the mapping, they are 
regarded as ordinary string values.]

co-chair hat on: adding local domain would be a normative change; again 
(as stated elsewhere) we would need to assure that everybody is fine 
with that delay, and that there is sufficent implementation commitment. 
So far I heard "it could be interesting" from Yves and Pablo


> CL>>    Global: <its:domainRule selector="/h:html/h:body" its-domain="IRI-GOES-HERE">
> CL>>    Local: <em its-domain="IRI-GOES-HERE">IMF</em>
> Cheers,
> Christian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Schütz []
> Sent: Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2013 17:22
> To: Lieske, Christian;
> Subject: Re: [Issue-75] - Domain
> Hi Christian and all,
> I wouldn't name it a messy situation/solution because it's one
> possibility of representing information in the current framework.
> Well, if we merge ideas then the arbitary string value(s) for a
> potential itsDomain attribute like "financials" in your proposal should
> be replaced by a link value... (which in general would make more sense
> to be applicable across language services).
> Cheers -- Jörg
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 16:07 (UTC+1), "Lieske, Christian" wrote:
>> 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 Saturday, 19 January 2013 17:59:54 UTC