Subject: [Ltru] Re: Inversions and other problems

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:03:32 -0700

First, I was not aware there were any comma-separated compound names at 
all in the ISO 639-3 data file.  I thought all of the compound names 
were separated by semicolons.  I'd like to ask Peter to confirm this.

Second, *IF* the above is true, then any inverted name can be 
un-inverted mechanically by converting "B, A" to "A B".  No intelligence 
is needed here.  (Note that the reverse is not true if either A or B 
consists of more than one word.)

Third, we have apparently started to plan exact wording for 4646bis on 
how to modify names from the ISO standards WITHOUT having settled the 
underlying question of whether this should even happen.  Debbie and at 
least one other person (I think Peter) had wanted at least one 
Description to match the name in the standard exactly, so the entries 
can be correlated in case the subtag doesn't match the code element 
(they might have to differ for stability reasons).  "Exactly" does not 
mean un-inverting names, removing parenthetical qualifications, changing 
the type of apostrophe, or even correcting typographical errors.  (I 
have written privately to request some minor capitalization and spacing 
changes in 639-3.)

There are valid arguments for both courses of action IMHO, and I do not 
argue here that we must follow one course or the other.  I am arguing 
that we should settle the basic question first -- to follow the 
standards exactly or not -- BEFORE we start writing text that implements 
one of the possible outcomes.  I ask the co-chairs again to declare 
consensus one way or the other on this basic question.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:05:39 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> Doug Ewell is a better approximation of a Turing machine than any 
> inversion algorithm.

Now I know what I'm going to have carved on my headstone.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:11:23 -0700

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

> 1. There are examples containing a double comma; those don't invert 
> properly
> Resian, Resianic, Rezijan

IMHO we should specifically not attempt to transform the names of any 
grandfathered or redundant tags.  Those exist as historical artifacts 
from RFC 1766 and 3066 and should not be tampered with.  If we are going 
to alter redundant tags, we may as well get rid of them.

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:49:03 -0700

Re use of commas, I believe there is no case in the 639-3 draft code
table data file where alternate names are separated by commas, but I'd
have to investigate to determine for sure.

Re mapping "B, A" to "A B", it might not always be that simple if A
contains a parenthetical -- i.e. we're talking about "B, C (D)", which
should map to "C B (D)".

Peter

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:02:11 -0700

I liked that one too!

Mark

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:05:40 -0700

The algorithm I used was (logically):

If there is a parenthetical
  If it isn't at the end it's an error
  Otherwise remove it.
In the remainder
  If there are two commas it's an error
  If there is one comma, invert the string
Append the parenthetical if there was one.

Mark