Subject: RE: [Ltru] Great Script Debate Part II: Formats...

From: "L.Gillam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:23:01 +0100

There are two things that apply here - harmonisation and data fusion.
The definitions of these two are varied, so in this instance
harmonisation can refer to determining the general principles between
these various systems (-4) which can provide for data fusion, described
in a certain quarter recently as merging datasets based on common values.
The upper layers of the Linguasphere and what is proposed for 639-5 are,
based on a small sample, highly interoperable. "gaps" such as there may
be can be reconciled because of construction based on slightly differing
characteristics, and where characteristics do differ needs to be documented.
Whether this is a -4 or -6 task, at an abstract level, is open for discussion.
-3 and -5 provide a means for disambiguating -1/-2 as I perceive them. -6, 
then, maps to the upper layers provided in this quadruple and provides 
its most specific contribution at levels of variety in written/spoken/signed 
and subcomponents thereof. I would consider that these systems provide
validation for each other and in combination are a very good basis
for informed theoretical discussion and practical application. Perhaps
I'm slightly biased!

Of course, this doesn't answer the "show us" requirement, and we do need
to pull everything together fairly soon. Perhaps we should be posting
to this list a bit less frequently!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: 12 April 2005 03:53
> To: Debbie Garside
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Great Script Debate Part II: Formats...
> 
> 
> Debbie Garside scripsit:
> 
> > At present, other than the information that I gave last 
> year outlining the
> > system (which basically stands), it would not be a good 
> idea for me to
> > reveal too much (perhaps my ISO/BSI colleagues currently 
> monitoring this
> > list can help here... I don't know the ISO protocol on this).  
> 
> I think that the most important point for this list is: is there going
> to be a normative mapping between -6 tags and -1/-2 tags, and if so,
> will -3 and -5 tags be mapped when those parts are available?  Or is
> the basis for -6 irreconcilable (not in principle but in detail) with
> the unified model of -1/-2/-3/-4/-5?
> 
> -- 
> You let them out again, Old Man Willow!                 John Cowan
> What you be a-thinking of?  You should not be waking!   
> [email-masked]
> Eat earth!  Dig deep!  Drink water!  Go to sleep!       
> www.reutershealth.com
> Bombadil is talking.                                    
> www.ccil.org/~cowan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:11:25 +0200

Thank you for this synthesis.

On 11:23 12/04/2005, L.Gillam said:
>I would consider that these systems provide validation for each other and 
>in combination are a very good basis for informed theoretical discussion 
>and practical application. Perhaps I'm slightly biased!

No. But remember that "these systems" only "provide validations for each 
other". And that only users provide validation for all of them.

>to pull everything together fairly soon. Perhaps we should be posting to 
>this list a bit less frequently!

This list is highly educative of what usage has to address in this area. 
Here as every where else the transition from centralised to distributed 
formulas, from dominance, to governance to intergovernance. A very general 
and common situation.

On 10:26 12/04/2005, L.Gillam said:
>Who's going to pay for all these items to be translated into the variety 
>of languages? Who is going to maintain all the servers, code lists and so
>forth, and deal with all those hits?

This is strange enough. One of my main motivation is that we (Internet 
Community) have _not_ the money for the considered IANA system - unless 
losing sovereignty, control, surety of usage for our own communities. I 
consider from 27 years daily experience in this area that the project does 
not operationnaly stand.. Covering the costs, developping the generic 
solutions, co-maintaining the data is precisely the target. How do you 
think INTL files are daily maintained? Because solutions and costs are to 
be trimmed from the very first idea of a system. What is not the case here. 
Yet.

There is a huge difference between discussing a table and managing a 
reference source, efficiently, at low cost, motivating partners months over 
years.

>Your opposition simply is not scalable - you're insisting on developing 
>nations with small finances making budgetary decisions that may not be in 
>their best interests.

I have some difficulty in understanding this. You are precisely using my 
arguments and my position to oppose me. This is quite interesting. My point 
is to permit. Permit do not impose. Your point seems to forbid. Forbidding 
imposes.

jfc