[ChineseGP] review solicitation: Terminology for CJK coordination committee and IP (v0.5)

[Edmon Chung]

LGR-2 is not quite LGR-CJK.
You may have mistaken -2 to be -M

I spent some time thinking through it.  I started down the path you
suggested Ryan, but I think we should have something more generic... so I
suggest:

LGR-1 --> LGR-X
LGR-2 --> LGR-Y

Because we are really talking about LGR-X(zh) / LGR-X(ja) / LGR-X(ko) AND
LGR-Y(zh) / LGR Y(ja) / LGR-Y(ko).

"FINAL" LGR-Y would be eventually the one that is submitted to IP and the
zh/ja/ko versions will be different.

Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Tan YH [mailto:ryan at sgnic.sg]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:40 PM
> To: Yoshiro YONEYA; IntegrationPanel at icann.org; ChineseGP at icann.org;
> JapaneseGP at icann.org; KoreanGP at icann.org; edmon at registry.asia;
> sarmad.hussain at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [ChineseGP] review solicitation: Terminology for CJK
coordination
> committee and IP (v0.5)
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Perhaps we can rename them as:
> - LGR-A [sub defined as LGR-A(C), LGr-A(J) and LGR-A(K) if there's merit
to be
> more specific for ease of reference]
> - LGR-CJK
> 
> Regards,
> Ryan
> 
> Yoshiro YONEYA wrote on 23/6/2015 10:50 PM:
> > Dear IP members, CJK GP members, Edmon and Sarmad,
> >
> > Please review following terminology text.  I'd like to finalize the
> > text at Thursday meeting.  Marc gave me a suggestion to use LGR-alpha
> > and LGR-beta instead of LGR-1 and LGR-2.  It seems more generic term
> > representing the development status of LGR.
> > Your comments, suggestions and refinements are very welcome.
> >
> >
> ===========================================================
> ===========
> >
> > Terminology for CJK coordination committee and IP (v0.5)
> >
> > Background
> >
> > CGP, JGP, and KGP are collaborating to create Root zone LGR for CJK.
CJK
> GPs' collaboration is not limited to among us, but also involving IP and
ICANN.
> For the efficiency and the good progress, we should have common
terminology
> definition for key concepts.
> >
> > Terminology
> >
> > (1)	Script
> > Based on Unicode, script is a collection of letters and other written
signs used
> to represent textual information in one or more writing systems.  Ex. Han,
> Hiragana, Katakana and Hangul.
> >
> > (2)	Chinese script, Japanese script, Korean script
> > Script(s) used in the language.  Chinese script is Han, Japanese script
is a
> mixture of Han, Hiragana and Katakana, and Korean script is a mixture of
Han
> and Hangul.
> > In Root zone LGR context, Chinese script, Japanese script and Korean
script
> are equivalent to und-hani, und-jpan and und-kore respectively.  Here,
hani, jpan
> and kore are terms from ISO 15924.
> >
> > (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'. Label disposition assigned as a result of WLE cannot be
reassigned.
> >
> > (4)	Variant type, variant subtype
> > Variant type is an attribute of a variant, which indicates the treatment
of the
> variant in WLE.  Variant type is one of (A) allocatable, (B) blocked, and
(C) out of
> repertoire var.  Variant subtype is a variation of variant type with
certain limitation.
> For example, in Chinese script, variant type "allocatable" are substituted
by
> "simp" (stands for simplified), "trad" (stands for "traditional") and
"both" (stands for
> both simplified and traditional) subtypes.  The variant subtype can be
defined by
> each GP.  Each variant type and variant subtype has to have one or more
> corresponding <action> element in WLE.
> >
> > (5)	LGR-1
> > LGR-1 is an LGR defined by each GP for CJK integration purpose.  Each
CJK
> GP can define LGR-1 independently from each other.  LGR-1 must consist of
> language tag (one of und-hani, und-jpan, and und-kore), repertoire of
allowed
> characters for applied-for label, variants of each character where variant
type
> (and variant subtype if necessary) is associated with each variant
characters, and
> WLE.  The variant type must not have "out of repertoire var".  LGR-1 is an
> intermediate product and it is not a final proposal of each GP.  The
development
> of LGR-1 can be cyclic.  Once CJK GPs generate each LGR-2, each GP assess
> it and modify LGR-1 if necessary.  This cycle can be repeated until all
CJK GPs
> get conclusion.
> >
> > (6)	LGR-2
> > LGR-2 is a LGR generated by LGR-1 integration process.  LGR-2 is
generated
> for each Chinese/Japanese/Korean script.  The differences between each
LGR-2
> are (A) language tag, (B) repertoire, and (C) variant type (including
variant
> subtype) of each variant.  The set of variants and WLE are common between
> LGR-2s.  Once each CJK GP concluded their LGR-1, the generated LGR-2 to be
> a final proposal of them.
> >
> > NOTE:
> > THESE TERMINOLOGY DEFINITIONS ARE VERY PRELIMINARY AND ARE
> NOT EXHAUSTIVE. THIS IS PREPARED FOR (Y)OUR REVIEW.
> >
> >
> ===========================================================
> ===========
> >
> > Regards,
> >