Dear colleagues, So far, we are using the following definitions of translation and transliteration: Translation: The process of conveying the meaning of some passage of text in one language, so that it can be expressed equivalently in another language. <RFC6365> Transliteration: The process of representing the characters of an alphabetical or syllabic system of writing by the characters of a conversion alphabet. <RFC6365> Thoughts about translation As meaning is involved, it is possible to have more than one correct English translation of the same foreign language text. For example, one version may be literal, another less loyal but better English. Does anybody have a good example of this phenomenon? As more than one correct translation is possible, translation is not normally a reversible process. An exception would be when a controlled vocabulary is used. Such a vocabulary may be useful for contact information. For example, it may be possible always to translate the Japanese word ビル /biru/ as "building". Even in closely related languages, controlled vocabularies may produce nonsense. For example, German erst(e) is usually 'first' and Hilfe is usually 'help'. However, erste Hilfe is 'first aid', NOT 'first help'. Thoughts about transliteration The key word here is the word "process". Transliteration should be systematic. Ideally anyone transliterating should produce the same result. Typically it follows an ISO standard or government legislation. This may then be simplified in some way. For example, the Chinese example in https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/Chinese+Addresses has the tone marks, that according to the Chinese transliteration rules should be there, removed. Transliteration does not mean: Representations where features from several systems mixed together, for example, Itou or Itoh for Japanese 伊藤 or 伊東. Transliteration may be reversible in the case of alphabetic writing systems etc., as long as no letter in either script is represented by more than one letter in the other script. Thai, for example, is probably not reversible as it frequently represents the same sound with different letters depending on the tone of the syllable. See, for example, the high and low letters kho here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_alphabet#Alphabetic 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: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 06 February 2014 18:44 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 06 February. These also are posted to the wiki page at:https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/06+February+2014. Actions: 1. Ching Chao will convey to the Council the PDP WG's request to get an agenda item on the Council meeting on 27 February so that the WG can bring to the Council its request for input. 2. Proposed Questions: Ask WG members to continue to suggest refinements on the list and the wiki. Question 1 -- ADD: What is the definition of translation and transliteration? Questions 3 & 4: Consider whether there are related questions or links to existing information. 1. What is contact information (review and expand on the taxonomies)? 2. Why are we doing this?; is this particular feature necessary? 3. Who gets access to what? 4. Who are the stakeholders?; who is affected? and what do they want (linking back to What)? 5. How much would a particular feature cost and how to weigh the costs versus the benefits? 6. When would policy come into effect? 7. What should be mandatory? Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director