Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Version 1 of the Draft Final Report

[James M Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

Thank you for this detailed explanation.

Speaking personally, I agree that we should include transcription along 
with transliteration and translation.
Jim



-- On September 19, 2011 12:51:44 PM -0400 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 
wrote regarding Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Version 1 of the Draft Final 
Report --
> On 12 Sep 2011, at 17:03, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > Also one possible substantive comment that occurred to me,
> > apologies, while reviewing the translation/transliteration
> > definitions and noting that transliterations were not really viable
> > for logographic based writing systems.  I don't think we ever
> > discussed ascii transcription, at least I do not remember doing so.
> > I am not suggesting we do so at this point, and I think it would
> > have many of the same problems that transliterations has, and
> > perhaps more - ie. are there even tools for that?
>
>
> We spoke about this a bit during the call today.  I was asked to
> write some more about it to the list so that more than just the few
> people on the call could give their opinions on the issue.
>
> First there were two issues confounded in what I wrote:
>
> 1 - the idea that the translation or transliterations would be to
> ASCII.  Jim explained that as chair he had been very careful to not
> indicate what script or language the translations would be to if they
> were done.  So my assumption that is would be ASCII was inappropriate
> and anticipated responses that he hoped to get from the issues report
> or PDP.  While I think it is a safe assumption that if there is a
> translation or transliteration it will be to the script/language that
> is the current whois script, but I accept that this be left open for
> the issues report.
>
> 2 - The second point is the one of transcription.  As stated in the
> report, transliteration works only for script based writing systems
> and not for the logograpghic writing systems.  Chinese, as far as I
> know, cannot be transliterated, but it could be transcribed; the
> sound the word makes could be scripted in the script yet to be
> selected as the possible script for translation and transliteration
> (point 1).
>
> This issue only occurred to me when reading the report.  It was at
> that point that I realized we had not spoken about the entire
> category of things one could do with non ASCII writing systems, that
> is we had not spoken about transcription of logographic writing
> systems..  I apologize for not thinking of this earlier, it should
> have occurred to me.
>
> I am not trying to add content to our report and not saying we should
> discuss this now, especially since we could not even come to a
> recommendation on translation and transliteration.  What I am
> suggesting it that we add this as a topic for the issue report we are
> requesting in recommendation 2.  While the staff is considering the
> issues related to Translation and Transliteration, can they also
> consider Transcription?
>
> thanks
>
> avri