转发: ICANN 51 IDN Presentation - KGP
Dear ALL Hanchuan helps forwarding the questions from KGP for the Chinese variant mapping and coordination I think it will help us have a better understanding of KGP’s concern. Please check the attachment. Regards Wang Wei 发件人: Han Chuan Lee [mailto:hanchuan.lee@icann.org] 发送时间: 2014年10月2日 22:55 收件人: Wang Wei; 'Kenny Huang' 主题: FW: ICANN 51 IDN Presentation - KGP Hi Wang Wei and Kenny, Please see documents from KGP and do share with the CGP if you feel it is of value. Regards Han Chuan, Lee
Dear Professor Kim, Wang Wei and colleagues, I thought I would have a try at answering the questions. I hope it’s helpful. Regards, Chris. == S[slide]3: The example is an interesting one as the difficult characters are used in situations where U4E00 一 may cause confusion e.g. Banknotes. S4 Professor Zhang’s thoughts on what is a character (同源 etc., same sound/meaning/form) are relevant here. Q11 No, as the mappings at LGR level need to be the same. Yes, as the most liberal mapping (in this case CN) needs to be used when the local tables are different. If this causes large variant sets, more difficult individual solutions may be necessary. Q12 Yes. As long as the mappings are merged in the most liberal way. Q13 No. As the most liberal mapping needs to be used. Q14 Yes; it is a possible scenario. Although if 壹 were blocked in all the local tables, it could not have been registered. S8 1.2 Yes; there can be a single mapping. Compromises may be necessary if large variant sets are created. 1.3 No, each language/script can’t have its own mapping, but can have its own dispositions. No; I can’t think of one. Any suggestions? Q21 Under the P2.1 procedure, I think the KGP needs to be set up first and then have its proposal approved. Q22 The CN LGR is certainly at an advanced stage. S15 The JGP does seem to be saying that Old Character Forms and New Character Forms are not variants. I am not sure whether the JGP considers them separate characters. They are certainly not universally variants as with SC and TC. However, I have argued elsewhere that in individual names it is common for a name to prefer an Old Character Form as with 紀伊國屋 and 紀伊国屋. I call these lexical variants, as they only occur in certain names and could not happen if they were separate characters. S14 Note that on slide 3 KR has 壹 and 壱 as variants. I guess we do need to think more about the character level than the word level, although admittedly large number of examples may affect our thinking as with 紀伊國屋. I welcome corrections and additions. 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 From: 王伟 <wangwei@cnnic.cn<mailto:wangwei@cnnic.cn>> Date: Friday, 3 October 2014 22:31 To: "ChineseGP@icann.org<mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org>" <ChineseGP@icann.org<mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org>> Subject: [ChineseGP] 转发: ICANN 51 IDN Presentation - KGP Dear ALL Hanchuan helps forwarding the questions from KGP for the Chinese variant mapping and coordination I think it will help us have a better understanding of KGP’s concern. Please check the attachment. Regards Wang Wei 发件人: Han Chuan Lee [mailto:hanchuan.lee@icann.org] 发送时间: 2014年10月2日 22:55 收件人: Wang Wei; 'Kenny Huang' 主题: FW: ICANN 51 IDN Presentation - KGP Hi Wang Wei and Kenny, Please see documents from KGP and do share with the CGP if you feel it is of value. Regards Han Chuan, Lee
Thanks Chris Are you going to LA next week? I think we could ask Hanchuan to arrange a face2face discussion with Korean team if necessary Regards Wang Wei 发件人: Dillon, Chris [mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk] 发送时间: 2014年10月6日 20:34 收件人: Wang Wei; ChineseGP@icann.org 主题: Re: [ChineseGP] 转发: ICANN 51 IDN Presentation - KGP Dear Professor Kim, Wang Wei and colleagues, I thought I would have a try at answering the questions. I hope it’s helpful. Regards, Chris. == S[slide]3: The example is an interesting one as the difficult characters are used in situations where U4E00 一 may cause confusion e.g. Banknotes. S4 Professor Zhang’s thoughts on what is a character (同源 etc., same sound/meaning/form) are relevant here. Q11 No, as the mappings at LGR level need to be the same. Yes, as the most liberal mapping (in this case CN) needs to be used when the local tables are different. If this causes large variant sets, more difficult individual solutions may be necessary. Q12 Yes. As long as the mappings are merged in the most liberal way. Q13 No. As the most liberal mapping needs to be used. Q14 Yes; it is a possible scenario. Although if 壹 were blocked in all the local tables, it could not have been registered. S8 1.2 Yes; there can be a single mapping. Compromises may be necessary if large variant sets are created. 1.3 No, each language/script can’t have its own mapping, but can have its own dispositions. No; I can’t think of one. Any suggestions? Q21 Under the P2.1 procedure, I think the KGP needs to be set up first and then have its proposal approved. Q22 The CN LGR is certainly at an advanced stage. S15 The JGP does seem to be saying that Old Character Forms and New Character Forms are not variants. I am not sure whether the JGP considers them separate characters. They are certainly not universally variants as with SC and TC. However, I have argued elsewhere that in individual names it is common for a name to prefer an Old Character Form as with 紀伊國屋 and 紀伊国屋. I call these lexical variants, as they only occur in certain names and could not happen if they were separate characters. S14 Note that on slide 3 KR has 壹 and 壱 as variants. I guess we do need to think more about the character level than the word level, although admittedly large number of examples may affect our thinking as with 紀伊國屋. I welcome corrections and additions. 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 From: 王伟 <wangwei@cnnic.cn <mailto:wangwei@cnnic.cn> > Date: Friday, 3 October 2014 22:31 To: "ChineseGP@icann.org <mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org> " <ChineseGP@icann.org <mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org> > Subject: [ChineseGP] 转发: ICANN 51 IDN Presentation - KGP Dear ALL Hanchuan helps forwarding the questions from KGP for the Chinese variant mapping and coordination I think it will help us have a better understanding of KGP’s concern. Please check the attachment. Regards Wang Wei 发件人: Han Chuan Lee [mailto:hanchuan.lee@icann.org] 发送时间: 2014年10月2日 22:55 收件人: Wang Wei; 'Kenny Huang' 主题: FW: ICANN 51 IDN Presentation - KGP Hi Wang Wei and Kenny, Please see documents from KGP and do share with the CGP if you feel it is of value. Regards Han Chuan, Lee
Dear KGP, Please see response from Mr Chris Dillon. Regards Han Chuan, Lee From: <Dillon>, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> Date: Monday, 6 October, 2014 8:34 pm To: Wang Wei <wangwei@cnnic.cn>, "ChineseGP@icann.org" <ChineseGP@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ChineseGP] 转发: ICANN 51 IDN Presentation - KGP Dear Professor Kim, Wang Wei and colleagues, I thought I would have a try at answering the questions. I hope it’s helpful. Regards, Chris. == S[slide]3: The example is an interesting one as the difficult characters are used in situations where U4E00 一 may cause confusion e.g. Banknotes. S4 Professor Zhang’s thoughts on what is a character (同源 etc., same sound/meaning/form) are relevant here. Q11 No, as the mappings at LGR level need to be the same. Yes, as the most liberal mapping (in this case CN) needs to be used when the local tables are different. If this causes large variant sets, more difficult individual solutions may be necessary. Q12 Yes. As long as the mappings are merged in the most liberal way. Q13 No. As the most liberal mapping needs to be used. Q14 Yes; it is a possible scenario. Although if 壹 were blocked in all the local tables, it could not have been registered. S8 1.2 Yes; there can be a single mapping. Compromises may be necessary if large variant sets are created. 1.3 No, each language/script can’t have its own mapping, but can have its own dispositions. No; I can’t think of one. Any suggestions? Q21 Under the P2.1 procedure, I think the KGP needs to be set up first and then have its proposal approved. Q22 The CN LGR is certainly at an advanced stage. S15 The JGP does seem to be saying that Old Character Forms and New Character Forms are not variants. I am not sure whether the JGP considers them separate characters. They are certainly not universally variants as with SC and TC. However, I have argued elsewhere that in individual names it is common for a name to prefer an Old Character Form as with 紀伊國屋 and 紀 伊国屋. I call these lexical variants, as they only occur in certain names and could not happen if they were separate characters. S14 Note that on slide 3 KR has 壹 and 壱 as variants. I guess we do need to think more about the character level than the word level, although admittedly large number of examples may affect our thinking as with 紀伊國屋. I welcome corrections and additions. 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
participants (3)
-
Dillon, Chris -
Han Chuan Lee -
Wang Wei