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

[Ryan TAN]

Understood. LGR-CJK(C) etc, might help but I'm ok with your suggestion.

I just didn't quite like the use of 'beta', which might give a different impression.

On 23 June, 2015 12:59:06 PM GMT-03:00, Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:
>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,
>> >

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/chinesegp/attachments/20150623/17e714b2/attachment-0001.html>