[Latingp] Latin GP Task 6

[Michael Bauland]

Hi Bill,

On 07.12.2019 20:42, Bill Jouris wrote:
> This task appears to have two separate parts. 
> 
> 1) *ASCII variants resulting from Transitivity* 
> 
> At the meeting with the Armenian, Cyrillic, Greek, and Latin GPs in
> Montreal, the IP noted that cross-script variants and transitivity
> resulted in Latin Small Letter V and Latin Small Letter Y being variants
> -- which, since they are ASCII characters, is not allowed.  The cause
> (at least part of the cause) was determined to be the Greek GP's finding
> that Greek Small Letter Nu and Greek Small Letter Gamma are variants. 
> That finding also resulted in an in-script Cyrillic variant which the
> Cyrillic GP found unacceptable.  
> 
> The result of discussion between the  GPs was that the Greek GP would
> reconsider their finding regarding Nu and Gamma.  Thus no action is
> required of the Latin GP. 

yes, that is also what I remember from the discussion. The Greek did not
seem to mind too much to lose that variant relationship.

> 
> 2) *Variants due to Transitivity*
> 
> A complete listing will, of course, await finalizing our decisions on
> Latin in-script variants.  But I have started creating tables for them. 
> For example, for Cyrillic cross-script variants, each case we found will
> also require a new transitivity listing for each of the Latin in-script
> variants we find for the Latin element in the cross-script variant. 
> Tedious to generate, or course, but not calling for any particular
> decision process by us.

I agree. Let's have two examples.
Let's say Lx are Latin characters and Cx are Cyrillic ones.

Example 1:
----------
If we then have have the following:
L1 a variant of C1.
L1 a variant of L2.
L2 a variant of L3.
C2 a variant of L4.

And the Cyrillic also have
C1 a variant of C2.

In that case, as I understand it, we have to list the following variant
sets:
{L1, L2, L3, C1}
{L4, C2}

The IP will then in a second step realise that C2 and C1 are variants
and therefore combine the two sets to one:
{L1, L2, L3, L4, C1, C2}

But that is out of our scope, as I understand it. We don't have to look
at any in-script variants within other scripts.

Example 2:
----------
If we have
L1 a variant of L2
but not
L1 a variant of C1

And the Cyrillic team has
C1 a variant of L1

Then we don't have to put C1 into our {L1, L2} variant set. That's the
task of the Cyrillic team. They do {C1, L1} and the IP will then
generate {L1, L2, C1} from this.


We always just look at the variant relationships we think are valid and
generate the transitive closure for those, ignoring any results from
other teams.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
____________________________________________________________________
     |       |
     | knipp |            Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
      -------                    Technologiepark
                                 Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
                                 44227 Dortmund
                                 Deutschland

     Dipl.-Informatiker          Tel:    +49 231 9703-0
                                 Fax:    +49 231 9703-200
     Dr. Michael Bauland         SIP:    Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
     Software-Entwicklung        E-Mail: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de

                                 Registereintrag:
                                 Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728

                                 Geschäftsführer:
                                 Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp