Thank you, Charles. Material to think about -- a standard basic or default
can be achieved, but more is needed. Somewhere to start from, but the path
has to be created, the blind alleys identified, the objective elaborated and
defined; and the framework builders need to bear it in mind that they may
need to accommodate cues for more than a simple output to be collated!
Hal Cain, sometime sufferer from outputs not adequate for the objectives
Melbourne, Australia
[log in to unmask]
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:56:47 +0000, Riley, Charles <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> One of the more helpful parts of this worth underlining here is
probably this section, in my view:
>
> "The feature of linguistic applicability deserves further
discussion. DUCET does not and cannot actually provide linguistically
correct sorting for every language without further tailoring. That would be
impossible, due to conflicting requirements for ordering different languages
that share the same script. It is not even possible in the specialized cases
where a script may be predominantly used by a single language, because of
the limitations of the DUCET table design and because of the requirement to
minimize implementation overhead for all users of DUCET.
>
> "Instead, the goal of DUCET is to provide a reasonable default
ordering for all scripts that are not tailored. Any characters used in the
language of primary interest for collation are expected to be tailored to
meet all the appropriate linguistic requirements for that language. For
example, for a user interested primarily in the Malayalam language, DUCET
would be tailored to get all details correct for the expected Malayalam
collation order, while leaving other characters (Greek, Cyrillic, Han, and
so forth) in the default order, because the order of those other characters
is not of primary concern. Conversely, a user interested primarily in the
Greek language would use a Greek-specific tailoring, while leaving the
Malayalam (and other) characters in their default order in the table."
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Emerson
>Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:41 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Unicode collation for Bibframe (Re: Filing
indicators)
>
>Riley, Charles writes:
>
>> There is something to work with here that I think would address that:
>> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/
>
>UTS #10 tracks ISO 14651 the same way the Unicode Standard tracks ISO
>10646: while the descriptions differ, the two organizations strive to keep
the data tables synchronised.
>
> -tree
>
>--
>Tom Emerson
>Principal Software Engineer, Search
>EBSCO Publishing
>[log in to unmask]
|