IMHO the secret is to identify the concept of the object by the most transparent designation and enter that as the preferred entry, if there are likely synonyms they should be allowed for, preferably with links to that preferred designation. For translations the concept of the object is all that is important to be identified then the same process for applying a suitable designation should apply for THAT language i.e. the most transparent designation for THAT language is chosen as the preferred term plus synonyms etc, i.e. it is not necessarily a literal translation of the original language entry, English or otherwise. This approach then applies to whatever language the original entries have been written in and maintains a reasonable chance of common understanding of the concept/language in question. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk] To: ltru at ietf.org,dewell at adelphia.net Cc: kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se Sent: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:07:58 -0000 Subject: RE: [Ltru] To invert or not to invert? Doug wrote: > Then what you really want is a Reference-Description: Yes! You (LTRU) really must read the standard and use a Reference Name (Description). As to inverted or non-inverted. Have both. But mirror the ISO 639-3 file other than when there is a perceived need for adding additional inverted forms. BTW, IMHO there is a marked difference between "Church Slavonic" and "Old Church Slavonic"; two separate entities. Debbie _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.