Subject: [Ltru] Re: Description on tags, not just subtags?

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:19:47 -0800

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic dot fr> wrote:

> A registration request of a variant recently triggered a discussion on 
> wether we should be able to add Description fields to tags, not just 
> subtags (ignoring the specific issue of grandfathered tags).
>
> For instance, if we use "alsatian" to refer to the variant of 
> alemannic spoken in Alsace (France), we cannot put a:
>
>   Description: Alsatian
>   Description: Els&#xE4;ssisch
>
> to the tag gsw-FR.
>
> Is it a real problem? Should we address it? How?

It might be a real problem, if the dialect or other language variant is 
commonly known by a distinct name (not just, say, "Australian English") 
and if tag users are unlikely to associate the dialect with the name of 
the base language.

In 
http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2008-January/007279.html I 
proposed using the Comments field for this purpose, to avoid introducing 
a new mechanism that would probably be used by only a handful of 
(cherry-picked) variations:

Type: language
Subtag: gsw
Description: Swiss German
Description: Alemannic
Added: 2006-03-08
Suppress-Script: Latn
Comment: gsw-FR represents the Alsatian dialect

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

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

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:51:21 -0800

> In 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2008-January/007279.html 
> I proposed using the Comments field for this purpose, to avoid 
> introducing a new mechanism that would probably be used by only a 
> handful of (cherry-picked) variations:
> 
> Type: language
> Subtag: gsw

I dislike this idea. We already have experience with it and its 
"unintended consequences". See: sign language tags.

For that matter, we have ample experience with region subtags being 
imbued with artificial meaning. For a long time, "zh-TW" 'meant' 
Traditional Chinese, for example. Part of the reason behind this whole 
effort is to reduce the need to attach artificial meaning to subtags.

This isn't to say that the tag "gsw-FR" doesn't encompass or "mean" the 
Alsatian dialect of Alemannic. It certainly encompasses Alsatian. But to 
start packing the registry with these sorts of comments (and the 
registration process with requests for same) strikes me as 
counter-productive to the point that I'd almost favor adding a MUST NOT 
to draft-4646bis.

Guidance on tag formation should, incidentally and in my opinion, be in 
the form of external documentation (such as on Langtag.net, in CLDR, or 
via the W3C articles on same, just to name a few) or in an additional 
informational documents (possibly an Informational RFC). Burying tag 
choice information like this in the registry seems complicated and 
haphazard.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:29:01 -0800

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Description on tags, not just subtags?
...
> choice information like this in the registry seems complicated and 
...

There are multiple questions here.

    1) Do we need to be explicit about the conditions under which a
       registration request would be considered to refer to something
       which can be clearly expressed with existing subtags? 
       (That is, should a request for "alsation" be denied because it
       would mean precisely the same thing as "gsw-FR"? (I leave it to
       experts in this language to determine whether that is indeed
       the case.))

    2) There may be cases where the correct tag for a particular
       language may not be immediately obvious from the data in
       the registry.  I can see several possible responses:
           a) attempt to add the information to the registry
           b) (as a WG) take on the effort of defining a repository
              for this information
           c) leave the documentation of such cases to others

    3) Do we need to provide additional clarification of precisely
       what is meant by the use of a region subtag?  The concept
       seems to be relatively fuzzy, encompassing both dialect and
       orthography.

My own answers:
    (1) I think some additional clarification might be helpful, as
        the Alsation request shows.
    (2) I'm inclined to go along with (a), but only so far as to
        recognize that this would not be systematic or comprehensive
        by any stretch of the imagination.  As soon as we had more
        than a handful of "Alsation" cases, my preference would shift
        to (c).
    (3) I think the fuzziness is a feature (meaning a bug a we can't
        fix).  Getting rid of the fuzziness would require a re-architecting
        of language tagging in general, but this shouldn't come as
        a surprise to anyone who has waded through the discussions
        on scripts and modalities and orthographies and historical
        forms over the years.  Consequently, I do not think we need
        additional clarification on this point.

Randy

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:42:51 +0100

Addison Phillips wrote:

> I dislike this idea.

+1  Comments should be reserved for exceptional cases,
e.g. the new "mis" description is far better than to
amend the old description with a comment.  

Using comments as "search engine optimization" is a
dubious idea, registering alsatian is fine.  

> I'd almost favor adding a MUST NOT to draft-4646bis.

No, let the subtag review list decide what they do
with comments.  We should make clear in 4646bis that
creative (ab)uses of region codes to emulate missing
variants are at best that, emulations.  

 Frank

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:06:23 +0100

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 04:29:01PM -0800,
 Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 83 lines which said:

>     language may not be immediately obvious from the data in the
>     registry.

IMHO, that's the big issue we have with the "alsatian" registration
request. How to help people find the tag when the name they use for
their language is not in the registry?

> I can see several possible responses:
...
>            c) leave the documentation of such cases to others

How do you ensure consistency in that case? Today, some people tag
alsatian as "de-FR", some (very rare, apparently) as "gsw-FR", some as
"gsw-x-alsatian" and some as the (invalid) "gsw-alsatian" or
"alsatian" or "als".

It seems that, for consistent tagging, we need one (1) authoritative
source (wether it is the LSR or a yet-to-be-done companion registry).

---

From: Nicholas Shanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:29:17 +0000

On 8 Jan 2008, at 09:06, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> source

I'll wager that those using de-FR, als and so on are not even looking  
at the registry, and probably don't know it exists. They're just  
applying their existing knowledge of how the system works and coming  
up with a less than correct result. As I suggested yesterday, I think  
it would be a good idea to create a separate list of synonyms  
encountered 'in the wild' and which actual tags processors (human and  
mechanical) should map them to.

- Nicholas.

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:15:08 +0100

Nicholas Shanks wrote:

> I'll wager that those using de-FR, als and so on are not even
> looking at the registry, and probably don't know it exists.

"de-FR" and "als" are rather different, the latter is just wrong.

The former was a sound workaround for Alsatian before the new 
"gsw" was introduced (2006), and until everybody learns that it
exists, and that it's supposed to encompass Alsatian.  

"de-FR" is still a good workaround for any German language used
in France if the tagger has no clue which of these languages it
is - Alsatian isn't the only game in twown ;-)  

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franconian_languages> contains
some examples, in this or another article I found that the 
German language spoken in Strasbourg is neither "Franconian"
nor "Alemanic" but a variant of "High German".  Stéphane picked
an interesting can of worms with his proposal.

 Frank

---

From: LB <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:03:04 +0100

To avoid resuming the 1870 war, could it be agreed that:

1. linguistics is not an exact science
2. several langtags can refer to the same language name, content,
classification, filtering, locale file, ... whatever they are used for?
3. the authoritative reference is the locutor/allocutor couple?

What is discussed here belongs to local documentation organization (langtags
concatenation), not to IETF protocols. The RFC should simply explain how all
the possible forms of tagging can be handled at local application layer. How
new real life tagging can be discovered and supported. IMHO going any
further leads to being trapped into nationalistic issues, as expressed by
Frank. They may have local but have no global legitimacy.

-- 
LB

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:27:31 -0800

gsw faces the same issue that encompassed languages from 639-3 do. That is,
"de" meaning German was the only available tag, so de-CH was ambiguous:
meaning either

   - Swiss High German (High German as used in Switzerland), OR
   - Swiss German (Schwytzerduetsch)

Then -- and not so long ago: 2006-03-08 -- gsw was introduced for Swiss
German (and broadened to mean any Alemanic despite the letters). From that
point in time, ideally de-CH would be used only for Swiss High German, and
gsw-CH unambiguously means Swiss German.

However, applications that deal with incoming tags need to be cognizant of
the fact that a de-CH may be ambiguous, either because content was tagged
before 2006, or because people didn't realize after 2006 that gsw was
available, and how it should be used. The registry (and the source
standards) do not make this situation clear.

The relevant records are merely:

Type: language
Subtag: de
Description: German
Added: 2005-10-16
Suppress-Script: Latn

Type: language
Subtag: gsw

In my opinion, the goal of all the descriptions and comments are to provide
*all and only* the minimal information needed to help people chose the
appropriate tag. That is, we don't want the description to be the wikipedia
article on the language, but we do want and need to provide enough
information so that if someone is faced with two possible plausible choices
of tags, the information disambiguates that choice. Thus we should add
comments and/or descriptions to the language-subtag-registry where we need
to make situations like this clear. For example, we could add to de:

Comment: For Alemanic (including Alsatian and Swiss German), see gsw.

and to gsw:

Comment: gsw-FR is used for varieties of Alemanic as used in France, notably
Alsatian. Similarly, gsw-CH is used for Swiss German (where it needs to be
distinguished from other forms of Alemanic).

Mark

-- 
Mark

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:53:40 -0800

Hi -

> From: "LB" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:03 AM
...
> classification, filtering, locale file, ... whatever they are used for?

No.  Having multiple distinct (not merely more-precise and less-precise)
language tags for the same language would be a very bad thing.
The fact that the same string might be well-formed both when understood
as a language tag or when understoof as a locale does not mean that it *is*
both.

> 3. the authoritative reference is the locutor/allocutor couple?

No.  The entity tagging the data makes its decision how to tag
the data.  That decision may be incorrect, and another entity
may choose to ignore that tag an apply some other.

> concatenation), not to IETF protocols.

Disagree.  The semantics of tag composition from subtags is very much
within this group's domain.

> The RFC should simply explain how all the possible forms of tagging can
> be handled at local application layer. How new real life tagging can be
> discovered and supported. IMHO going any further leads to being trapped
> into nationalistic issues, as expressed by Frank. They may have local but
> have no global legitimacy.

The discussion of specific registration requests is not handled on this list.
However, discussing specific *examples* can be very helpful in the identification
of issues and learning how principles might be best applied.

Randy

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:02:30 -0800

Ø  gsw was introduced for Swiss German (and broadened to mean any Alemanic despite the letters)

Clarification: gsw was introduced with the semantic documented by the ISO 639-3 RA, which in turn is a pointer to the Ethnologue 15 entry for gsw. IIRC, that did not change before or since gsw was introduced into the LSTR; it always included (for instance) “Alsatian” (the Allemanic variety spoken primarily in Alsace), and it always excluded (for instance) “Swabian”.

Peter

From: Mark Davis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:28 AM
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Description on tags, not just subtags?

gsw faces the same issue that encompassed languages from 639-3 do. That is, "de" meaning German was the only available tag, so de-CH was ambiguous: meaning either

 *   Swiss High German (High German as used in Switzerland), OR
 *   Swiss German (Schwytzerduetsch)
Then -- and not so long ago: 2006-03-08 -- gsw was introduced for Swiss German (and broadened to mean any Alemanic despite the letters). From that point in time, ideally de-CH would be used only for Swiss High German, and gsw-CH unambiguously means Swiss German.

However, applications that deal with incoming tags need to be cognizant of the fact that a de-CH may be ambiguous, either because content was tagged before 2006, or because people didn't realize after 2006 that gsw was available, and how it should be used. The registry (and the source standards) do not make this situation clear.

Type: language

Subtag: de

Description: German

Added: 2005-10-16

Suppress-Script: Latn

Type: language

Subtag: gsw

Description: Alemannic

Added: 2006-03-08

Suppress-Script: Latn

In my opinion, the goal of all the descriptions and comments are to provide all and only the minimal information needed to help people chose the appropriate tag. That is, we don't want the description to be the wikipedia article on the language, but we do want and need to provide enough information so that if someone is faced with two possible plausible choices of tags, the information disambiguates that choice. Thus we should add comments and/or descriptions to the language-subtag-registry where we need to make situations like this clear. For example, we could add to de:

and to gsw:

Comment: gsw-FR is used for varieties of Alemanic as used in France, notably Alsatian. Similarly, gsw-CH is used for Swiss German (where it needs to be distinguished from other forms of Alemanic).

Mark
On Jan 8, 2008 1:06 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 04:29:01PM -0800,
 Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote

...

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

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:19:15 +0100

>            c) leave the documentation of such cases to others

OK, in any case, it may be better to explain to people where to find a
subtag, in the spirit of Unicode's "Where is my character?"
(http://www.unicode.org/standard/where/).

What do people think of this first attempt:

http://www.langtag.net/find-subtags.html

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:22:52 +0100

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:06:23AM +0100,
 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]> wrote 

> source (wether it is the LSR or a yet-to-be-done companion registry).

Small show of hands about the possibility of a yet-to-be-done
companion registry, dedicated to "extra" information to help people
find the right tag. Do you consider it to be:

1) A good idea
2) A bad idea (I believe that it is a good summary of Mark Davis'
posting http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg09271.html)

If the answer is 1) (a good idea), would you prefer it to be:

1a) A formal registry, with registration procedures described in a RFC.
1b) A "Web 2.0" site, hosted for instance at www.langtag.net, allowing
anyone to add information at will.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:46:48 +0100

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:15:08AM +0100,
 Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 29 lines which said:

> Stéphane picked an interesting can of worms with his proposal.

It seems that, since the publication of RFC 4646, most proposals on
ietf-languages raised a discussion on LTRU.

It may indicate that we are not stable yet, regarding the registration
process. The beta testing phase goes on?

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:54:49 -0500

> process. The beta testing phase goes on?

It's more like this:  ietf-languages is permanent, LTRU is transient or at most
recurrent.  When an instance of LTRU exists, it makes sense to
scrutinize the cases discussed in ietf-languages to see if anything
should be changed in the new version of BCP 47 under discussion.  Most of
the time, when there is no LTRU process, ietf-languages will have to evolve its own
standing rules and best practices.

-- 
John Cowan    [email-masked]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves.
        -- Julius Caesar

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:28:30 -0800

I think having companion informative data would be good, *if* people are
signed up to maintain it.

However, I think the core information necessary to identify the tags (which
should be used for what) should be in the registry (as per my message).

As far as your page goes, it looks like a good start. For the core message,
however, it needs a bit more explanation.

> Both Richard Ishida's Web service and the above method have a limit: they
only use data that is in the registry. If it is not written there, you will
not find it. For instance, if you want to write texts in
Alsatian<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsatian%20language>,
and search this word in the registry, you won't find it.

=> Both Richard Ishida's Web service and the above method have a limit: they
only use data that is in the registry. If the relationship between common
names and the tags is not in the registry, you will not find it. For
instance, if you want to identify "British English", you have to realize
that that is done by constructing the tag "en-GB" (not *"en-UK") from
subtags in the registry. Similarly, if you want to identify
Alsatian<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsatian%20language>,
and search this word in the registry, you won't find that "gsw-FR" is the
right tag to use.

> For instance, the article on Alsatian will show the language code gsw (
Alemannic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic%20German>), which, even if
it does not specifically indicate the alsatian dialect, is a good start.

=> For instance, the article on Alsatian will show the language code gsw (
Alemannic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic%20German>), which, even if
it is broader than Alsatian, will be part of the language tag that you need.

But be careful: Ethnologue displays only 3-letters code, while the registry
sometimes use 2-letters code.

=> But be careful: Ethnologue displays only 3-letters code, while the
registry requires 2-letters codes whenever they are available.

> It has a search function <http://www.ethnologue.com/site_search.asp> that
allows you to use words that are not in the formal standard, such as
alsatian.

=> It has a search function <http://www.ethnologue.com/site_search.asp> that
allows you to use words that are not in the formal standard. For example,
searching for "Alsatian", you'll find
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gsw, where there is the
comment: "Called 'Schwyzerdütsch' in Switzerland, and 'Alsatian' in France."

Mark

Minor: "alsatian" => "Alsatian" in English.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:46:46 +0900

>Then -- and not so long ago: 2006-03-08 -- gsw was introduced for Swiss German (and broadened to mean any Alemanic despite the letters). From that point in time, ideally de-CH would be used only for…

We (while I was at W3C) have always advised against the use of de-CH
for Swiss German. Of course, that doesn't mean that nobody has used it,
but at least for written content, I'd expect there is tons more of
High German with Swiss orthography than Swiss German. And both for
spoken and for written Swiss German, you really need a finer
regional distinction than just "Swiss German" to be of much use.

Regards,    Martin.

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

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:44:14 +0100

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:28:30PM -0800,
 Mark Davis <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 159 lines which said:

> For the core message, however, it needs a bit more explanation.

Thanks. Integrated.

---

From: LB <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:21:58 +0100

Dear Randy,

> as a language tag or when understoof as a locale does not mean that it

I am sorry, I do not understand.  What I mean is that if the same language
name is associated  to several langtags will not create any problem.  The
same as the same actual language can have several language names and ISO
entries ? What is the problem if one refers French as "fr" or as "fra", or
as "x-français" as long as the allocutors agree ?

> may choose to ignore that tag an apply some other.

You mean that there can be several LSR?

> within this group's domain.

You mean the syntax? Agreed.
But I understood the terminology was with the Reviewer?

The discussion of specific registration requests is not handled on this
> list.

Full agreement.
However, examples should  be kept as neutral as possible, carrying no
pragmatic.
A "de-FR" tag has a significant context attached.

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:29:20 +0100

JFC wrote:

> What I mean is that if the same language name is associated
> to several langtags will not create any problem.

We're trying to avoid this as it increases the registry, and it
makes matching harder than necessary.  When I'm looking for say
Alsatian content I'm not necessarily interested in finding gsw
pages with other Alemannic dialects, or any non-Alemannic pages
roughly passing as "some kind of German language as spoken in
France" when that's *not* Alsatian (e.g. if it is Franconian).

>> The semantics of tag composition from subtags is very much

> You mean the syntax? Agreed.

I guess he means semantics when he says semantics.  The only
syntactical problem was my proposal to use prefix gsw-FR for
a variant Alsatian:  For constructs like gsw-Brai-FR-alsatian
I'm not sure if our definition of "prefix" covers them.

> However, examples should be kept as neutral as possible,
> carrying no pragmatic.

NAK, it's far easier to look at practical examples where some
of us have an idea what they actually are.

> A "de-FR" tag has a significant context attached.

"Some German language (or dialect) as spoken in France" is
not significant enough to trigger only on Alsatian, if that's
what you mean.  Taggers not familiar with the fine print of
gsw and lb, and how to tell what's what, might still try to
use de-FR instead of gsw-FR / lb-FR if it reflects what they
know.  Besides the Wikipedia article suggests that High-German
dialects also exist in France, making de-FR fuzzier, it could
be "correct", not only "old" or "better than nothing".

 Frank

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:49:38 +0100

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 02:29:20PM +0100,
 Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]> wrote 

> JFC wrote:

Are you sure LB is the One-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? I found his style
strange and confused and, now that you've detected Him, I admit there
is some proximity, but not yet a proof...

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:33:07 -0800

I agree completely with what you said, about what *should have been
done.*What I was describing was what would happen unless people
happened to get on
the right lists or look at the right pages... That's why I think we want
short xrefs in the registry itself.

On Jan 9, 2008 12:46 AM, Martin Duerst <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >gsw faces the same issue that encompassed languages from 639-3 do. That
> is, "de" meaning German was the only available tag, so de-CH was ambiguous:
> meaning either

---

From: LB <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:27:56 +0100

2008/1/9, Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>:
> makes matching harder than necessary.

Dear Frank,
matching means a locutor's and an allocutor's visions being matched.
This means some trade-off. If you make it too hard from one of them
you will have no match because you will have nothing.

 When I'm looking for say
> France" when that's *not* Alsatian (e.g. if it is Franconian).

I did not react to what was said about my region (French/Breton).
But I know Alsatians who would disagree with this. see below.

> I'm not sure if our definition of "prefix" covers them.

This is a syntax standard. Semantics can only be about the content.
Not about operational cases. Otherwise it is not a standard but an opinion.

> of us have an idea what they actually are.

Correct, this is why it must be analytical pragmatics. One must not
pay so much attention to historical context as you seem to do.

> be "correct", not only "old" or "better than nothing".

Sorry, this is not what I mean. I mean that as a German you
may have that context in mind, and as a French I have not the
same. So, the example is of no use. The only thing I want to
convey is that it will most probably be the same for every example.

This is why, as a multilinguist, I am embarassed by some
linguist's concepts on this list. They do not fit with ISO 639. Unless
Randy is correct and you do not document a single LSR at
network level, but an application level system.
-- 
LB
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:15:39 -0000

Nicholas wrote:

> As I suggested yesterday, I think it would be a good idea to
> create a separate list of synonyms encountered 'in the wild'
> and which actual tags processors (human and

I agree.  ISO's Standards as Databases initiative should facilitate this.
This is also something that I mentioned many moons ago here on LTRU.

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Shanks [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 08 January 2008 09:29
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Description on tags, not just subtags?
>
> They're just applying their existing knowledge of how the
> system works and coming up with a less than correct result.
> As I suggested yesterday, I think it would be a good idea to
> create a separate list of synonyms encountered 'in the wild'
> and which actual tags processors (human and

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:43:43 +0100

Debbie Garside wrote:

 [synonyms]
> many moons ago here on LTRU.

Pointer please, I fear I missed this.

 Frank