Dear Qichao, Effectively the CN rule becomes a general rule once the mappings are made compatible. Variants in any language LGR may block labels even if they come from an LGR where they would not be blocked. I like that particular example especially, as it indicates a first come first served situation where a label including a low frequency character (and which is not a variant in all the language LGRs) blocks a label with a high frequency character. Again this is presuming the ��each language has a descriptive LGR of its own situation (with or without variant mappings) and then another LGR (with possibly adopted* variant mappings) which is compatible with other LGRs for the script�� model. *I have been using the word ��inherited�� for this, but ��adopted�� (i.e. from other languages using the script) may be better. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/c hrisdillon>
From: ?�� [mailto:qichao@cnnic.cn] Sent: 09 January 2015 03:21 To: Dillon, Chris; Sarmad Hussain Cc: Yoshiro YONEYA; ChineseGP@icann.org; hotta@jprs.co.jp Subject: Re: Re: [ChineseGP] proposal to eliminate the divergence between us
Dear Chris,
I agree with your understanding: if there is a variant mapping in any language, there will be the mapping in all language. So the mappings are formally unified, but C J and K still could apply different rule for allocated/blocked case.
Your case is a nice example, but this is a minor error that the situation of
'where .XX�� was allocated, disallowing the separate allocation of . XXһ'
is a rule only for language tag CN, while '.XX��' and '.XXһ 'could be both allocated for language tag JP or KR, and these are in a mapping similar to tag CN but different disposition rule.
Maybe my understanding is wrong, and I hope IP can give an common example for C, J and K.
Best Regards
________________________________ ?�� via foxmail
?���ˣ� Dillon, Chris<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> ?��??�� 2015��1��8��(������) ����9:04 �ռ��ˣ� Sarmad Hussain<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> ���ͣ� yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp<mailto:yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp>; ChineseGP@icann.org<mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org>; hotta@jprs.co.jp<mailto:hotta@jprs.co.jp> ��?�� Re: [ChineseGP] proposal to eliminate the divergence between us Dear Sarmad, That is certainly an example of what I mean. The possible issue with CJK is that there will be many such examples. We will only know how many when we have tables for SC, TC, J and K. The CJK tables with compatible mappings* (i.e. not the tables which describe the situation in SC, TC, J and K) will probably end up with: ��If it��s a variant in any language, it will be a variant in the tables with compatible mappings*.�� *If my understanding is right, there will be no single amalgamated table. From a Japanese (Traditional Chinese and Korean) perspective, it Is weird to have, for example, � ��hair�� and �l ��send�� as variants (as they are both ? in Simplified Chinese) and on slide 8 of Professor Kim��s presentation, there was a possible situation where .XX�� was allocated, disallowing the separate allocation of . XXһ, although һ is a much more basic character. However, I am yet to discover cases (and there would need to be quite a few of them) which could be party-stoppers. The Procedure is very well made and I believe it will be possible to follow it. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/c hrisdillon>
From: Sarmad Hussain [mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org] Sent: 08 January 2015 11:01 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: ChineseGP@icann.org<mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org>; Wang Wei; yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp<mailto:yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp>; hotta@jprs.co.jp<mailto:hotta@jprs.co.jp> Subject: RE: [ChineseGP] proposal to eliminate the divergence between us Dear Chris, If I understand this correctly, here is an example from Arabic script which could be relevant: U+06A9 (?) and U+06AA (?) are distinct letters (not variants) in Sindhi language (see http://www.omniglot.com/writing/sindhi.htm). However, these code points are considered variants of U+0643 (?) by other language communities (e.g. Arabic language). Therefore, they are being considered as variants by the ArabicGP (see Table 3 in https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/47253587/Arabic%20Variant%2 0Analysis%20for%20LGR%200.8.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1419700233000&api =v2). Regards, Sarmad From: Dillon, Chris [mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 3:09 PM To: Wang Wei; yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp<mailto:yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp>; hotta@jprs.co.jp<mailto:hotta@jprs.co.jp> Cc: ChineseGP@icann.org<mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org>; Sarmad Hussain Subject: RE: [ChineseGP] proposal to eliminate the divergence between us Dear colleagues, ����옷 �����ޤ��Ƥ���ǤȤ��������ޤ� ? ? �� ?? ???? Or/. Happy New Year! I am wondering whether there may be a way of making the proposal below work, without the JGP��s having to define variant sets and mappings (well, only a small number in scenario 2). Scripts used by many languages, for example Cyrillic and Arabic (I��ll leave out Latin as it is used by so many languages it may cause confusion) may be in a situation where some implementations of the script define variants (cf. SC and TC) and some don��t (cf. Japanese). One possible approach could be that languages which don��t define variants inherit the variant sets and mappings from the languages using the script that do define variants. I��m copying Sarmad in on this email, as this is a phenomenon which may have occurred in the work of one of the other GPs. I reckon this approach would work for cases 1, 3 and 4 below. (Actually 5 too as long as there are no examples of it��) That only leaves us with cases in scenario 2 such as �� (a variant which only exists in the Japanese table) for which a mapping to �� and �X would need to be created. For all other cases, the SC/TC mappings would be inherited. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/c hrisdillon>
From: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wang Wei Sent: 29 December 2014 07:54 To: yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp<mailto:yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp>; hotta@jprs.co.jp<mailto:hotta@jprs.co.jp> Cc: ChineseGP@icann.org<mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org> Subject: [ChineseGP] proposal to eliminate the divergence between us
Dear Yoneya San and Hotta San
Please kindly accept my belated but best wishes for the Christmas and new year. Recently, we carried out the following works and I outlined them here for your comments:
For any Hanzi in CGP repertoire, it belong to a variant mapping set (minimum set size is 1 which means there is no variant for the code point) under the current rules borrowed from CDNC; and for any Kanji code point in JGP repertoire, it may also belong to some variant mapping set (we acknowledge that there is no variant in JPRS practice so far, but we assume that there will be a kind of variant mapping definition in JGP repertoire).
All the variant mapping sets can be divided into FIVE scenarios:
1. the variant mapping set in JPRS �� variant mapping set in CDNC [cid:image001.jpg@01D02C04.FD28B860] In CGP �� 611B (0);?(86),��(886);��(0),?(0); ? 7231 (0);?(86),��(886);��(0),?(0);
In JGP ��611B(2,3);611B(2,3);
2. the variant mapping set in CDNC �� the variant mapping set in JPRS [cid:image002.jpg@01D02C04.FD28B860] In CGP: ��520A (0);��520A(86),��520A(886);��(0),�X(0); �X520B (0);��520A(86),��520A(886);��(0),�X(0);
In JGP: �� 520A(2,3);520A(2,3); �X 520B(2,3);520B(2,3); �� 681E(2,3);681E(2,3); *: this example is ONLY an assumption
3. the variant mapping set in CDNC = the variant mapping set in JPRS [cid:image003.jpg@01D02C04.FD28B860] In CGP һ4E00 (0); һ4E00(86),һ4E00(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); ��58F1 (0); Ҽ58F9(86),Ҽ58F9(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); Ҽ58F9 (0); Ҽ58F9(86),Ҽ58F9(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); �o5F0C (0); һ4E00(86),һ4E00(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0);
In JGP: һ 4E00(2,3);4E00(2,3); �� 58F1(2,3);58F1(2,3); Ҽ 58F9(2,3);58F9(2,3); �o 5F0C(2,3);5F0C(2,3); *: this example is ONLY an assumption
4. the variant mapping set in CDNC �� the variant mapping set in JPRS = 0 [cid:image004.jpg@01D02C04.FD28B860] The code point UNIQUELY exists in JGP table �y8FBB(2,3);8FBB(2,3);
5. the variant mapping set in CDNC �� the variant mapping set in JPRS �� 0
and the variant mapping set in CDNC �� the variant mapping set in JPRS [cid:image005.jpg@01D02C04.FD28B860]
No specified example so far
\
In the past, we discussed the variants problem for many times, but mainly based on the two types: allocatable and blocked. However, we think another type ("out-of- repertoire") in the XML draft, may help the conflicted issue between JGP and CGP, which was recommended by Asmus' mail. The basic principle is "any variant label with a code point out-of-repertoire is invalid". We think this ��out-of-repertoire�� type and consequent ��invalid�� action will tremendously decrease the complexity of variant mapping coordination between us.
For scenario 1: In CGP �� 611B (0);?(86),��(886);��(0),?(0); ? 7231 (0);?(86),��(886);��(0),?(0); In JGP �� 611B(2,3);611B(2,3);
JGP take? 7231 into variant mapping set, but mark it as ��out-of-repertoire�� and take ��invalid�� action for WLG process, which means, ? 7231 will never be generated into the labels.
JGP LGR: <language>und-Jpan</language> <char cp="611B" tag="sc:Hani"> <var cp="611B" type="alloc" comment="identity" /> <var cp="7231" type="out-of-repertoire-var" /> <!--Hans, JGP should exist.--> </char> WLE rules: <action disposition="invalid" any-variant="out-of-repertoire-var" comment="any variant label with a code point out of repertoire is invalid"/> <action disp="allocatable" all-variant="alloc" />
CGP LGR: <language>und-Hani</language> <char cp="611B" tag="sc:Hani"> <var cp="611B" type="trad" comment="identity" /> <!-- Jpan --> <var cp="7231" type="simp" /> </char> <char cp="7231" tag="sc:Hani"> <var cp="611B" type="trad" /> <!-- Jpan --> <var cp="7231" type="simp" comment="identity" /> </char> WLE rules: <action disp="blocked" any-variant="block" /> <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="simp both" /> <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="trad both" /> <action disp="blocked" any-variant="simp trad" /> <action disp="allocatable" comment="catch-all" />
For scenario 2: In CGP: ��520A (0);��520A(86),��520A(886);��(0),�X(0); �X520B (0);��520A(86),��520A(886);��(0),�X(0);
In JGP: �� 520A(2,3);520A(2,3); �X 520B(2,3);520B(2,3); �� 681E(2,3);681E(2,3);
Now it is CGP��s turn to take�� 681E into variant mapping set, but mark it as ��out-of-repertoire�� and take ��invalid�� action for WLG process, which means, �� 681E will never be generated into the labels.
CGP LGR <language>und-Hani</language> <char cp="520A" tag="sc:Hani"> <var cp="520A" type="both" comment="identity" /> <var cp="520B" type="block" /> <var cp="681E" type="out-of-repertoire-var" /> <!-- Jpan --> </char> <char cp="520B" tag="sc:Hani"> <var cp="520A" type="both" /> <var cp="520B" type="block" comment="identity" /> <var cp="681E" type="out-of-repertoire-var" /> <!-- Jpan --> </char> <char cp="681E" tag="sc:Hani"> <!-- Jpan --> <var cp="520A" type="block" /> <var cp="520B" type="block" /> <var cp="681E" type="out-of-repertoire-var" comment="identity"/> </char> WLE rules: <action disp="invalid" any-variant="out-of-repertoire-var" comment="any variant label with a code point out of repertoire is invalid"/> <action disp="blocked" any-variant="block" /> <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="simp both" /> <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="trad both" /> <action disp="blocked" any-variant="simp trad" /> <action disp="allocatable" comment="catch-all" />
JGP LGR: <language>und-Jpan</language> <char cp="520A" tag="sc:Hani"> <var cp="520A" type="alloc" comment="identity" /> <var cp="520B" type="block" /> <var cp="681E" type="block" /> </char> <char cp="520B" tag="sc:Hani"> <var cp="520A" type="block" /> <var cp="520B" type="alloc" comment="identity" /> <var cp="681E" type="block" /> </char> <char cp="681E" tag="sc:Hani"> <var cp="520A" type="block" /> <var cp="520B" type="block" /> <var cp="681E" type="alloc" comment="identity"/> </char> WLE rules: <action disp="blocked" any-variant="block" /> <action disp="allocatable" all-variant="alloc" />
For Scenario 3:
In CGP һ4E00 (0); һ4E00(86),һ4E00(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); ��58F1 (0); Ҽ58F9(86),Ҽ58F9(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); Ҽ58F9 (0); Ҽ58F9(86),Ҽ58F9(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); �o5F0C (0); һ4E00(86),һ4E00(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0);
In JGP: һ 4E00(2,3);4E00(2,3); �� 58F1(2,3);58F1(2,3); Ҽ 58F9(2,3);58F9(2,3); �o 5F0C(2,3);5F0C(2,3);
JGP needs to create its own mapping set including all above 4 code points and corresponding rules, otherwise, it will fall into scenario 1..
For Scenario 4: Like UNIQUE code point ONLY exists in JGP table �y8FBB(2,3);8FBB(2,3);
CGP probably will not include this code point into its repertoire. No extra work or rule are needed.
For Scenario 5: [cid:image006.jpg@01D02C04.FD28B860]
Actually, we have not find the code points which fit into this scenario. But the solution will refer to scenario 1 or 2, like:
For JGP, ��C�� will be included but marked as ��out-of-repertoire�� For CGP, ��A�� will be included but marked as ��out-of-repertoire��
In conclusion, ��out-of ?repertoire type�� and ��invalid action�� provide us a conservative and simple way to reach a consensus for the variant mapping and rules. According to our analysis on CGP table and JPRS table There are 4983 code points fit for Scenario 1 There are 840 code points fit for Scenario 3 There are 170 code points fit for Scenario 4
Since JGP has not decided yet if variant relationship exist in JGP repertoire, we don��t have analytical number about scenario 3 and scenario
Dear Hotta I do love the terminology of "passive defined variants" which describes the 'borrowed' or 'adopted' variants from other GP's repertoires precisely. Let me explain what we will do when we (CGP) encounter that " passive defined variants " we will include that code point into the repertoire, and "block" or "invalid" the whole labels contained the "passive defined variants" "block" means the label could be activated and allocated in the future due to the registration policy. "invalid" means the label will never never be activated, since the "passive defined variants" does not exist in original repertoire, or namely, "out-of-repertoire" For example In CGP: ��520A (0);��520A(86),��520A(886);��(0),�X(0); �X520B (0);��520A(86),��520A(886);��(0),�X(0); In JGP: �� 520A(2,3);520A(2,3); �X 520B(2,3);520B(2,3); �� 681E(2,3);681E(2,3); The possible solution for CGP, is to include�� 681E(2,3) into repertoire, and mark it as "passive defined variants" or "out-of-repertoire �� And the consequent whole label action is "block" or "invalid" depends on linguists' advice and registration policy. Does that make sense to JGP? I think we have already reach a consensus on the variant mapping principles. Could you please give us some more examples of different variant cases? we can work together on them and try to make the solution more clear. Regards Wang Wei -----�ʼ�ԭ��----- ������: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] �� �� HiroHOTTA ����ʱ��: 2015��1��18�� 23:16 �ռ���: Dillon, Chris ����: Yoshiro YONEYA; ChineseGP@icann.org ����: Re: [ChineseGP] proposal to eliminate the divergence between us Hi Chris, JGP is investigating how each language GP should generate its LGR. We finally have come to understand that, for example, JGP should have at least "passively defined" variants that are defined in CGP and/or KGP. Borrowing Wang Wei's example, Let's suppose CGP defines һ4E00 (0); һ4E00(86),һ4E00(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); ��58F1 (0); Ҽ58F9(86),Ҽ58F9(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); Ҽ58F9 (0); Ҽ58F9(86),Ҽ58F9(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); �o5F0C (0); һ4E00(86),һ4E00(886); һ(0),��(0),Ҽ(0),�o(0); JGP defines 'һ' and '��' as independent (non-variant) characters, and 'Ҽ' and '�o' are not in JGP repertoire. In such a case, JGP must define 'һ', '��', 'Ҽ', and '�o' as variants, and 'һ'and '��' are both allocatable when 'һ'or '��' is applied for registration. In JGP, we call this as "passively defined variants" - it seems that 'inherited' or 'adopted' is used by Chris for this. "Passively defined variants" is necessary if this is not automatically calculated in an output of IP. I hope each language GP and IP have a discussion on the possibility and specification of this (automatic) calculation. Hiro On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:16:26 +0000 "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: 5. But what we believe is that the above solution can also be applied for scenario 3 and 5 no matter what kind of variant mapping JGP will produce.
All above is our proposal for settle the divergence at minimum cost for
both of us.
What do you think about it? Looking forward for your reply.
Best Regards, Wei Wang
_______________________________________________ ChineseGP mailing list ChineseGP@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp