I want to comment on one short part of a recent message from Rebecca, after
having seen also the later messages on the same subject:
-----Original Message-----
From: ISO JAC Voting Member List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Rebecca S. Guenther
Sent: den 16 februari 2001 14:46
Subject: Re: [JACVOTE] [Fwd: Language tagging]
--- we do not feel that TC46 would
want to play a key role in their development. We could leave them
to TC37 rather than as a joint project and comment on the work as is
appropriate. There are questions of coordination with the existing
standards but these could be handled within the JAC. The details of
developing the standards, getting them through the draft and approval
process, etc. could be a TC37 effort. Essentially for our community we
have what we need in 639-2 and its established maintenance process. We all
have to set priorities in what involvement is practical given the many
commitments we have in various areas.
---
To be frank, I do not share Rebecca's confidence in 639-2 and the
maintenance process, esp. since the parts or extensions outlined could mean
a method of getting more detailed language coding without adding to 639-2
for variants and dialects, an area where it is unavoidable to have difficult
strategic issues. And both the Scandinavian and the British experience has
led to lists of language codes, set up for use in bibliographic systems,
that go beyond the LC and the 639-2 practices. So I would welcome a
get-together during the week before the Boston IFLA.
Viewing the general scope of ISO TC37, I can agree that a general
responsibility for a code list of this kind lies there, but nevertheless, it
is a fact that TC46 has put a considerable effort into establishing the
three-character version and the JAC apparatus. So historically, as I see it,
TC46 has a co-author responsibility in the ISO639, and it should live up to
it.
Sten
|