Making XML document markup international
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In name and in practice, the World-Wide Web (hereafter Web) is used around the World beyond English-speaking areas. This creates a tremendous need to internationalize standard terminology used in the technologies that make the Web possible. Existing efforts on XML internationalization (i18n) and localization (i10n) have focused on the content of XML documents instead of the terms used in markup (annotations) such as elements and attributes. The SGML standard ISO 8879 supports the use of Unicode (ISO 10646) throughout a document, including markups. However, most elements and attributes of XML documents are still defined in English, thereby limiting their use among non-English speakers. This paper presents an XSLT-based method that can completely localize the markup of XML documents into different natural languages. We also describe how the proposed technique can be applied to translation problems in programming (e.g. C and Java) or documentation (e.g. LATEX or other formatting languages) so that a program or a document can be converted to and from an XML format. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".