From ybf2u@curry.edschool.virginia.edu Sat Jan 28 21:31:55 1995 Received: from moose.cs.indiana.edu by whale.cs.indiana.edu (5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA27155; Sat, 28 Jan 1995 21:31:54 -0500 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by moose.cs.indiana.edu (5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA05656; Sat, 28 Jan 1995 21:31:52 -0500 Received: from curry.edschool.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17883; 28 Jan 95 21:31 EST Received: (from ybf2u@localhost) by curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id VAA42645; Sat, 28 Jan 1995 21:31:48 -0500 From: Yitna Benyam Firdyiwek Message-Id: <199501290231.VAA42645@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Getting Started To: dan'El yaqob , Yonas Fisseha , Abass Alamnehe Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 21:31:47 EST X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3.1 PL11] Status: R Selam All: Yonas, thanks for kicking this up. The list of names of those involved in the original CSES group is accurate. Of those, I would say that Abass, Tekle, Fisseha, and I were the most involved. The others were informed, of course, but really did not have a hand in developoing the CSES report. One exception is the information supplied to us at the beginning of our project by Ato Terrefe Ras-Work. He gave us, as I recall, some background information regarding the implementation of Ethiopic into the Telex system using the the technology and coding schemes of the time (60's and 70's?), but which he pointed to us as being still operational. He also made it quite clear that the systems were all patented in some way or another, and that the patents belonged to him. Should we invite any of the people from that list? My immediate reactino is no. I think we, just the four of us--Abass, are you there, we haven't heard from you yet--can take the job pretty far. After we've hashed through the existing documents and figured out what exact form the UTC wants our report to be in, then, we should identify the questions we cannot resolve, if any, and start looking for those who can help us. Finaly, when we are ready to present the report, we may consider going to the original CSES group member or the ESS (I prefer the latter) and asking for sponsorship or some kind of arrangement. The bottom line is that we need to have something substantial in our hands (something built on, and addressing the problems of, the previous report). How far did the CSES report go? Abass, you'll have to correct me if my information is off, but generally, our two-part ("rational" and "recommendation") report was received fairly favorably. Of the two, the first part was considered (at least by Dr. Becker) the weaker. That part was where we tried to explain why the other recommendations (especially Dr. Anderson's) was unsuitable for Ethiopic. In later correspondence with Dr. Becker, he point out to me that the arguments we were making (future sofware developers would be unduely hampered by the decision to condense the Ethiopic syllabary back into an alphabetic system...ect.) did not impress the UTC primarily because they had, from the beginning, decided not to let the issue of future software developers play any part in the Unicode philosophy itself. Dr. Becker did not say this, but I think that they were dismissing our arguments offhand not because of their merits, but because of this policy. Reading between the lines, I also think the strategy of attacking a competitor's proposal was not diplomatic. Our report this time must stand on its own merit. The second part of the CSES report, containing the table and naming and addressing conventions, had some minor errors which Dr. Becker pointed out and Abass, I believe, corrected. Abass also answered some other questions that needed to be clarified. In general, though, Dr. Becker thought that part was done well. As we go into the next stage of revising the report, my suggestion is that we drop the first part for now and work on nailing down the table and naming/addressing conventions. We can go back and write whatever introduction is necessary when we are done. 1. Let's look at the final product of the original table that Abass worked on after Dr. Becker's suggestions. 2. Let's compare that to SERA (especially in the area of keyboard entry) and evaluate the differences. 3. Let's come up with a table that takes advantage of the best aspects of both systems. It looks deceptively simple, doesn't it ;> God help us, but it is! We just have to get those tables side by side and look at them. I hope this is enough to get us going. I will say more if there are any questions. Abass, if you see anything differently, or if I've forgotten anything major, but add to this. Tha's all for now. wendmachu, yTna