[ChineseGP] [Japanesegp] Redefinable

[HiroHOTTA]

As the documents have been already distributed to all CJK GP 
members and IP members, I don't like to send another version 
which may result in confusion.

So, could Edmon (or Chris) propose the change of the wording 
in the meeting ?

Hiro




On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:28:26 +0000
"Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Edmon,
> 
> Beautifully clear and I like it very much. Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chris.
> ==
> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities,
> UCL, Gower
> St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599)
> ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon
> 
> 
> On 22/06/2015 09:21, "Edmon Chung" <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:
> >Suggestion for last sentence:
> >
> >Label disposition assigned as a result of WLE cannot be reassigned.
> >
> >
> >Edmon
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: chinesegp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces at icann.org]
> >>On
> >> Behalf Of Dillon, Chris
> >> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 6:45 PM
> >> To: hotta at jprs.co.jp
> >> Cc: ChineseGP at icann.org; KoreanGP at icann.org; JapaneseGP at icann.org
> >> Subject: Re: [ChineseGP] [Japanesegp] Redefinable
> >> 
> >> Dear Hiro,
> >> 
> >> It1s good to see the additional sentence and 3given to2, but
> >>3redefinable2
> >needs
> >> attention, as it could mean redefining the existing dispositions (i.e.
> >making them
> >> mean something else). The quick way to solve it is to ask Asmus what he
> >meant
> >> and perhaps add a few words.
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> 
> >> Chris.
> >> ==
> >> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital
> >>Humanities,
> >UCL,
> >> Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599)
> >> ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 22/06/2015 07:34, "HiroHOTTA" <hotta at jprs.co.jp> wrote:
> >> >Dear Chris and all,
> >> >
> >> >To be clearer, let me put 'given to' to the last sentence.
> >> >
> >> >(3) Disposition
> >> >Result of whole level evaluation (WLE). Disposition is assigned to a
> >> >label, not to a character. In general, the Root zone process only
> >> >allows the two dispositions 'allocatable' and 'blocked' (as well as
> >> >'invalid' for labels that are not valid at all). It is not possible to
> >> >add new dispositions other than 'allocatable', 'blocked' and 'invalid'.
> >> >And dispositions given to the labels are not redefinable.
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >Hiro
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:03:29 +0900
> >> >HiroHOTTA <hotta at jprs.co.jp> wrote:
> >> >> Thank you, Chris.
> >> >> It helps a lot.
> >> >>
> >> >> > It is not possible to add new dispositions other than
> >> >> > 'allocatable', 'blocked' and 'invalid'
> >> >> I believe this is also correct and important as well.
> >> >> So, let us include the both in the definition statement.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll place the definition
> >> >>
> >> >> (3) Disposition
> >> >> Result of whole level evaluation (WLE). Disposition is assigned to a
> >> >> label, not to a character. In general, the Root zone process only
> >> >> allows the two dispositions 'allocatable' and 'blocked' (as well as
> >> >> 'invalid' for labels that are not valid at all). It is not possible
> >> >> to add new dispositions other than 'allocatable', 'blocked' and
> >> >> 'invalid'. And dispositions for the labels are not redefinable.
> >> >>
> >> >> in the terminology document and take it to the CJK+IP meeting today.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hiro
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:52:13 +0000
> >> >> "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> > Dear Yoshiro and colleagues,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I1d like to start a discussion about improving the last sentence of
> >> >> > terminology 3 (given in full below for context), along the lines
> >> >>mentioned
> >> >> > yesterday:
> >> >> > (3) Disposition
> >> >> > Result of whole level evaluation (WLE). Disposition is assigned to
> >> >> > a label, not to a character. In general, the Root zone process only
> >> >>allows
> >> >> > the two dispositions 3allocatable2 and 3blocked2 (as well as
> >> >>3invalid2 for
> >> >> > labels that are not valid at all).  And dispositions for the labels
> >> >>are
> >> >> > not redefinable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There was a feeling yesterday that 3reassignable2 may be better
> >> >> > than 3redefinable2, and 3assign2 was already used of 3disposition2
> >> >> > in the second sentence in the paragraph. The meaning would then be
> >> >> > that dispositions cannot change as a result of some other process.
> >> >> > If, on the other hand, the meaning is that it is not possible to
> >> >>create
> >> >> > new dispositions, perhaps we could have something like:
> >> >> > It is not possible to add new dispositions other than
> >> >> > 3allocatable2,
> >> >> > 3blocked2 and 3invalid2.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Chris.
> >> >> > ==
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital
> >> >>Humanities,
> >> >> > UCL, Gower
> >> >> > St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599)
> >> >> > ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> japanesegp mailing list
> >> >> japanesegp at icann.org
> >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/japanesegp
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ChineseGP mailing list
> >> ChineseGP at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp
> >
> 
>