Re: [Ltru] going back to the roots to find a solution to "zh"

["Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>]

Randy wrote:

In retrospect, I think it would have been better to have taken the route of
   zh -> some kind of Chinese, likely (but not guaranteed) to be Mandarin
   zh-cmn -> Chinese, specifically Mandarin
   ar -> some kind of Arabic, likely (but not guaranteed) to be Standard
Arabic
   ar-arb -> Arabic, specificall Standard Arabic
   de -> some kind of German, overwhelmingly likely (but not guaranteed) to
be Hochdeutsch
   de-*hde -> German, specifically Hochdeutsch


I agree wholeheartedly!

Why can we not take this route.  It is far far better and less troublesome
as well as more in line with reality (IMHO)

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: 06 May 2008 19:31
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] going back to the roots to find a solution to "zh"
>
> Hi -
>
> As a technical contributor...
>
> > From: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
> > To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:13 AM
> > Subject: [Ltru] going back to the roots to find a solution to "zh"
> ...
> > Of course, that's the general problem we're facing: we must find a
> > solution to the dual usage or "zh" or abandon any possibility of
> > allowing "zh" to have its generic meaning, yet existing
> usage seems to
> > imply that the latter isn't an option, so a solution to the
> dual usage
> > is essential - but we're at a loss as to how to solve it.
> ...
>
> This points to the "soft underbelly" of "tag wisely" - the
> assumption that the tagger can reasonably anticipate how the
> "consumers" of the tag will want to use that information.
>
> In retrospect, I think it would have been better to have
> taken the route of
>    zh -> some kind of Chinese, likely (but not guaranteed) to
> be Mandarin
>    zh-cmn -> Chinese, specifically Mandarin
>    ar -> some kind of Arabic, likely (but not guaranteed) to
> be Standard Arabic
>    ar-arb -> Arabic, specificall Standard Arabic
>    de -> some kind of German, overwhelmingly likely (but not
> guaranteed) to be Hochdeutsch
>    de-*hde -> German, specifically Hochdeutsch
>
> Even recognizing that reasoning about "language X is some
> kind of Y" can be horribly fuzzy, this would still be better
> aligned with a "principle of least astonishment" for folks
> trying to understand the specification, trying to tag data,
> or trying to formulate a query.  Yes, huge amounts of data
> might end up being tagged less precisely than we might like,
> but at least they'd still be tagged accurately.
>
> Randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>
>




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru