Subject: [Ltru] Survey on inverted vs. uninverted names

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:33:33 -0800

Section 3.1.4 of draft-4646bis-02 still says that multiple "formatting 
variations" of Description fields, including inverted and uninverted 
versions of the same description, are not permitted in the Registry.  It 
still, and intentionally, does not specify whether the inverted or 
uninverted forms are to be used.  For purposes of the bulk update, that 
decision is left to RFC 4645bis; for subsequent registrations, I assume 
it's an ad-hoc decision on the part of the ietf-languages list.

On several occasions, I've been asked to simply pick one of these 
options, write the draft, and wait for feedback.  The reason I haven't 
done this is that it's not just about writing the draft.  RFC 4645bis --  
like RFC 4645 but on a much larger scale -- requires the generations of 
hundreds of pages of data that reflect the decisions specified in the 
prose.  Because of the size of this project, I would greatly prefer to 
write a program to generate the new Registry data from the ISO 639-3 
files and the existing Registry, rather than attempting to do it by 
hand.  Changing a decision like this would require modifying the program 
and validating the results before submitting a new draft.  The cost of 
submitting a draft that is out of touch with the WG is high.

So I'm going to try one more time to gauge the hum of this WG as to 
which forms should appear in the Registry.  Since IETF WGs don't vote, 
this shall be considered a Survey, not an Election.

I would like to ask everyone to send a message to the LTRU list by 
Tuesday, December 19, at 17:00 UTC (9 am in California, 2 am Wednesday 
in Japan) indicating which of the following options you prefer:

Option U:  For names that exist in both forms, use only the uninverted 
form.

Option I:  For names that exist in both forms, use only the inverted 
form.

Option B:  Use both inverted and uninverted forms.  PLEASE NOTE that 
this option requires a change to Section 3.1.4 of draft-4646bis, and 
consequently will cause a delay in the creation of draft-4645bis-01.

For purposes of this Survey, please try to stick to Options U, I, and B 
and keep other issues such as ordering of Description fields, "fixing" 
of capitalization and punctuation, etc. on other threads with other 
Subject lines.

At some time shortly after Tuesday at 17:00 UTC, I'll submit 
draft-4645bis-01 with the option preferred by the list (unless it is 
Option B, in which case I have to wait for draft-4646bis-03).

--
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: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:01:29 +0100

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> Option U:
> For names that exist in both forms, use only the uninverted form.
 
> Option I:
> For names that exist in both forms, use only the inverted form.

If that gives me "Frisian, Western" it's acceptable.

> Option B:  
> Use both inverted and uninverted forms.

Also acceptable.  Apparently I prefer "not only U" :-)

> PLEASE NOTE that this option requires a change to Section 3.1.4 of
> draft-4646bis, and consequently will cause a delay in the creation
> of draft-4645bis-01.

You can create drafts whenever it pleases you, if 4645bis can follow
4646bis, then the opposite is also possible.  Of course they've to be
in sync for a Last Call, but we're far away from this mainly dealing
with the 4645bis parts.

Frank

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:41:51 -0800

The options are underspecified, so let's make a few things clear. I'll
illustrate with the following:

Description: A B C
Description: B C, A
Description: C, A B

My assumptions are:

C1. In options that allow inversions, then comma outside of parentheses
always means inversion. (That is the only way we've discussed that we can
predictably process inversions.)

C2. A "duplication" means a case where two descriptions, after any
uninversion of commas, are the same. That is, each of the above Descriptions
is a duplication of both of the others. Thus option U only allows the "A B
C", option I allows any one of them*, and option B allows any or all.

C3. *Option I means "allow inversions", but does not require us to invert.
That is, in some cases "A B C" should be treated as a single unit, and thus
not inverted at all, in some cases "B C" should/can be treated as a unit,
and in some cases full inversion would be "best". And in many cases it may
not be clear which is the best, and reasonable people may differ.

(One could have an option I2 which would allow both "B C, A" and "C, B A",
but if there is any inversion, don't allow the uninverted form. But I assume
that isn't on the table.)

Conclusions:

Option I is possible, but will involve case-by-case determination of which
choice is "better" (is "Old North Foobar" treated as a single unit, or is
"North Foobar" a unit?), and is only really useful for English; other
languages, as noted on the list, would have different or no inversions.

Option B I could live with, but can get pretty cluttered and more work,
again only really of value for English speakers.

So I favor option U.

Mark

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:51:25 -0800

>> Option B, in which case I have to wait for draft-4646bis-03).

We haven't submitted draft-02 yet. :-)

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:23:23 -0500

> Option U:  For names that exist in both forms, use only the uninverted 

I'm for this, now that I know (curses!) that inverted names don't
carry information about grouping.

-- 
And it was said that ever after, if any                 John Cowan
man looked in that Stone, unless he had a               [email-masked]
great strength of will to turn it to other              http://ccil.org/~cowan
purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering
in flame.   --"The Pyre of Denethor"

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:06:15 -0800

> illustrate with the following:

I thought it was clear and already decided that only the forms appearing 
in the ISO 639-2 and -3 online files would be considered, and we would 
not add any inversions that were not listed therein.

> My assumptions are:
>
> C1. In options that allow inversions, then comma outside of 
> parentheses always means inversion. (That is the only way we've 
> discussed that we can predictably process inversions.)

The ISO 639-3 data file includes a field called Print_Name, which is the 
uninverted name, and a field called Inverted_Name, which is the inverted 
equivalent.  There's no need for us to make up our own rules about this.

> uninversion of commas, are the same. That is, each of the above 
> Descriptions is a duplication of both of the others. Thus option U 
> only allows the "A B C", option I allows any one of them*, and option 
> B allows any or all.

The ISO 639-3 file only lists one inverted form for each name.  Let's 
assume, for sake of argument, that form is:

Description: B C, A

Then Option U only allows "A B C", Option I only allows "B C, A", and 
Option B allows both "A B C" and "B C, A".  None of the options allow 
"C, A B" since it is not listed by ISO.

> C3. *Option I means "allow inversions", but does not require us to 
> invert. That is, in some cases "A B C" should be treated as a single 
> unit, and thus not inverted at all, in some cases "B C" should/can be 
> treated as a unit, and in some cases full inversion would be "best". 
> And in many cases it may not be clear which is the best, and 
> reasonable people may differ.

Again, this is totally determined by the 639-3 data.  Some names of two 
or more words have no inverted form.  "Tok Pisin" and "Broome Pearling 
Lugger Pidgin" are examples.

> (One could have an option I2 which would allow both "B C, A" and "C, B 
> A", but if there is any inversion, don't allow the uninverted form. 
> But I assume that isn't on the table.)

Not as I have defined it.  If you feel these additional inversions are 
necessary, we can start that debate over again.

> Conclusions:
>
> Option I is possible, but will involve case-by-case determination of 
> which choice is "better" (is "Old North Foobar" treated as a single 
> unit, or is "North Foobar" a unit?), and is only really useful for 
> English; other languages, as noted on the list, would have different 
> or no inversions.

Governed entirely by the ISO data.  No decision-making necessary for me 
or anyone else.

> Option B I could live with, but can get pretty cluttered and more 
> work, again only really of value for English speakers.
>
> So I favor option U.

You may (or may not) wish to recosinder after seeing that none of these 
three options require any significant brainpower.  The only question is 
which of the ISO-supplied names do we want to include.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:10:23 +0900

With my chair hat off, I agree with John.    Regards,   Martin.

>carry information about grouping.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:40:41 -0000

+1 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 17 December 2006 11:10
> To: John Cowan; Doug Ewell
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Survey on inverted vs. uninverted names
> 
> >> Option U:  For names that exist in both forms, use only the 
> >> uninverted form.
> >
> >I'm for this, now that I know (curses!) that inverted names 
> don't carry 
> >information about grouping.
> >
> >--