I totally agree with you - at least there should be a choice either user or
content induced - to translate or not to translate. Also one must think of
the possibility of how much the translation service or program will become
another point of failure - or even a security issue.
Lillian Komlossy
Site Manager
http://www.dmnews.com
http://www.imarketingnews.com
(212) 925-7300 ext. 232
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 4:18 PM
To: Lillian Komlossy
Subject: Re: Universal Network Language
Lillian Komlossy wrote:
> It would make sense if it sat in front of the applications such as the
> browsers and did the translation - or the applications interfaced with it
-
> but either way it will be another monkie to slow down the entire process.
I
> don't know if it is worth the effort.
I suspect it will be if, and only if, the actual translation works. If it
does, then someone will come up with a way to make it more efficient. At
the
moment, it looks like they're putting the translation services onto servers
because they think that's the only way to get them deployed; and probably
they're right.
I'm skeptical about the translation, though; machine translation has a long
way
to go, and forcing it to run through a synthetic language will probably
hinder
more than it hurts. (Think about what happens when you want to translate
from,
say, English to German, and the concept you're translating can be expressed
concisely in both languages, but not in UNL.)
--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp. |That is correct. I'm out of fuel. My landing |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|gear is jammed. And there's an unhappy bald |
| |eagle loose in the cockpit. |
\==============================================================/
