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@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