LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  March 2000

ISOJAC March 2000

Subject:

Re: IMPORTANT PROPOSAL

From:

Håvard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:00:09 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (123 lines)

Dear JAC members,

I don't entirely disagree with Rebecca's suggestion in all respects. We have
for a long time been talking about mechanisms for handling variants of
different sorts. This may be geographical variants, variation in time,
socio-linguistic variation, writing system, orthographic system, etc. The
standards do currently not have the best possible mechanisms for handling
this. The introduction of the identifier for sign language added new
interesting challenges. There is nothing in the current standard about HOW
to combine e.g. language and script identifiers. Geographic identifiers may
be added, but all the examples just add two-letter country identifiers after
a space character. I guess it is possible to add identifiers according to
3166-2, but how (EXACTLY how)?

We may wish to withdraw the current 639-2, and to hold 639-1, and then go
through the whole thing. Personally I would not be in favour of doing that.

I am 100 % certain that libraries will have great problems assigning the
identifiers for Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. There are very floating
differences. So we should call it "Serbo-Croatian" or "Bosno-Croato-Serbian"
or something, and add "sub-identifiers"? I am also certain that there are
hundreds of other cases where the difference between languages are not
entirely clear.

I could produce lots of documents where not even a Norwegian can tell you
whether it is Bokmål or Nynorsk. There are also lots of documents that have
some text in Bokmål and some text in Nynorsk. But there are clearly defined
and officially recognized norms for Bokmål and Nynorsk respectively. There
is no problems whatsoever in identifying text as one or the other if they
adhere to these norms. The majority of documents obviously do that.

The terminology community in Norway and the Nordic countries have discussed
this. The conclusion is that we need one identifier for Bokmål and one for
Nynorsk. From a terminology point of view there may be less need for an
identifier for Norwegian, but since it is already there, it doesn't cause
any problem to keep it.

I don't see any great problems if LoC also in the future encodes their
Norwegian holdings as "nor" only.

CONCLUSION: I am very much against the proposed un-doing of a final decision
that was made two weeks ago. I am also against the implicit proposal to
expand the coding mechanisms at this point in time, unless a thorough study
and work is done. The expansion of the coding mechanism should be on the
agenda in connection with the revision process some years from now.

Best regards,
Håvard

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Håvard Hjulstad           mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Rådet for teknisk terminologi
  (Norwegian Council for Technical Terminology)
  Postboks 41 Blindern
  NO-0313  Oslo, Norway
  (besøksadresse/visiting address: Forskningsveien 3 B)
  tel: +47-23198040   faks: +47-23198041
  http://www.rtt.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rebecca S. Guenther [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 10:23 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      IMPORTANT PROPOSAL
> 
> To ISO 639/JAC:
> 
> We had a meeting here at the Library of Congress of catalogers who are
> applying the language codes, and the difficulty of applying the three
> Norwegian codes was made clear.  It was felt that at least in the U.S.
> and probably most places outside of Norway those applying the codes may
> not have the expertise to be able to determine and it may not be
> desirable for searching and retrieval purposes to make such fine
> distinctions. There is also the problem that there exists two forms of the
> language, one based on Danish and one on Old Norse (this taken from
> Havard's ISO/DIS 639-l Annex C), while there are now 3 codes. As Havard
> stated at our meeting, this is a national rather than international need,
> although all of these codes are needed in Norway.
> 
> This is a case that is bound to come up time and time again in this
> standard, when local needs conflict with international needs.  Those of us
> maintaining large bibliographic databases and producing large numbers of
> records may not be able to or want to make the fine distinctions that
> might be made in the countries where the language is spoken.
> 
> Therefore I would like to propose the following solution.  The new codes
> that were approved (nno and nob) would be appended onto the more general
> code for Norwegian.  Thus, a hierarchical type of coding would be used:
>         nor-nno  Norwegian Nynorsk
>         nor-nob  Norwegian Bokmaal
> For the alpha-2 list we would do the same, although I would argue that
> only the alpha-3 code would be needed as an extension:
>         no-nno  Norwegian Nynorsk
>         no-nob  Norwegian Bokmaal
> An alternative could be using the alpha-2 code as the second part:
>         no-nn
>         no-nb
> 
> We could consider applying this mechanism in the future where needed for
> these types of situations, but we would NOT go back and look at the codes
> we have as to whether others are similar.
> 
> This solution would be consistent with the ISO 3166 subentity codes, where
> the code for a subentity is attached to a country code to be more
> specific.  It would also be consistent with the direction in the current
> proposed revision to RFC1766, where it is stated that a subtag may be used
> in conjunction with a language code (example is: no-nynorsk, no-bokmaal).
> The only difference is that a code would be used for the subtag, rather
> than a language name.
> 
> I would like to open up discussion on this proposal during the next
> several days. Please consider it and comment between now and next Tuesday,
> 7 March. Then I will send out a voting form and we will vote on it.
> 
> Although we have previously voted on these codes, I don't see this
> possible change as a complete reversal of that decision, but a
> reformulating of how the codes are presented.
> 
> I look forward to your comments.
> 
> Rebecca

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
January 2021
November 2020
June 2020
May 2019
February 2019
September 2018
April 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
May 2016
April 2016
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager