[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: confusability



tedd <tedd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > For the moment I'll call the relation "confusability".  Given any
> > two labels (in no particular order), they are either confusable or
> > not, and it is possible to compute that boolean value.
>
> From an earlier post, someone talked about IBM.com vs 1BM.com -- which
> should have been ibm.com vs 1bm.com, but none the less this type of
> similar-looking-glyph use can be confusing.  It can be even more
> confusing if one uses a Greek small letter iota with tonos (U03AF) to
> produce an ibm.com.  Is this the type of confusion you are talking
> about?

Could be.  A registry would define its confusability relation as it
sees fit.  It doesn't want to define confusability so narrowly that
not enough things are considered confusable, because then it would be
swamped by disputes about name ownership.  But it doesn't want to define
confusability so broadly that it drastically curtails the number of
registrations (and hence revenue).

Maybe "confusable" is not the best term.  Maybe "neighboring" would be
better.  It's got some of the right intuition:  If you are my neighbor,
then I am your neighbor (symmetry), but my neighbor's neighbor is
not necessarily my neighbor (intransitivity).  You can speak of the
neighborhood centered around a particular label.  Neighborhoods centered
around different labels can partially overlap.  A bundle would be either
a set of labels that are all neighbors of each other, or a subset of the
neighborhood centered around the bundle's primary label, depending on
which version of property 2 we use.  Property 1 says that neighboring
labels in a zone must not belong to distinct bundles.

I just noticed that I forgot to state an assumption, which we can call
property 0:  Every label in a zone belongs to exactly one bundle.

AMC