I have completed a document enumerating individual issues that need to be
resolved in ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 in order to prepare the way for ISO
639-3. For the most part, this is a matter of nailing down precisely what
the meaning of each entry in ISO 639-1/-2 is. In some cases, resolving
these issues may involve some changes; for instance, there are entries in
ISO 639-1/-2 that have names like individual-language entries, but they
probably should be collections; so, a change of the name associated with
the identifier to “… languages” may be needed.
It is essential that these things get resolved as I can’t determine what
needs to be listed in ISO 639-3 until I know exactly what each thing in ISO
639 part 1 or part 2 is supposed to be, and how it relates to the things
that are to be listed in part 3. It’s important that various stakeholders
give their input into these decisions so that we can ensure that the
standard reasonably meets the needs of all of the different sectors and
user communities that use these standards. (This includes the Internet,
WWW, software industry, linguists and other academic researchers, and other
users in addition to terminologists and bibliographers.) Also, it’s
important that this document be processed and the issues resolved
reasonably soon as it is in the critical path of progress on ISO 639-3. (It
is also in the critical path of preparation of the 15th edition of the
Ethnologue, which has a publication goal for this year.)
I tried to upload this to the TC Server, but I couldn’t figure out how to
do that. Havard, would you please post this as a TC 37/SC 2/WG 1 doc. For
those that don’t have access to TC 37’s area on the TC Server, I have
posted a copy at
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=PCUnicodeDocs
(it's the last link at the bottom of the page, under "Other standards
documents"
The decisions to be made pertain to ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2, and so fall
under the jurisdiction of the ISO 639/RA Joint Advisory Committee. The
appropriate place for working discussions, then, would be the ISO 639 JAC
list. On the other hand, that is a closed-membership list, and there are
other parties not currently on that list who must be party to those
discussions as they will be involved in some capacity in the development
and future maintenance of ISO 639-3. These people are: Gary Simons (
[log in to unmask]); Paul Lewis ([log in to unmask]), who will be assuming
the role of Ethnologue Editor after the 15th edition is published; and
Anthony Aristar ([log in to unmask]), who maintains for The Linguist
List and in cooperation with SIL and the Open Language Archive Community
the catalog of historic, ancient and invented languages that will, in
complement to the Ethnologue, provide the basis for the inventory of
languages in ISO 639-3. In discussions of these issues, it will be helpful
if JAC members be sure to copy these three people. (Unfortunately, those
three will not be able to reply to the JAC list, but I can forward their
comments to the JAC list as needed.)
It may be useful for others beyond the JAC to review the doc and provide
input. There isn't one email address that can bring all the appropriate
parties together. I suggest that those of you on the JAC list with contacts
whom you think should have a chance to provide input invite your contacts
to provide feedback to you, and that you then incorporate that feedback
into your own comments on the JAC list.
For those attending the JAC meeting in D.C. next week, it will be most
helpful if you have taken time to review this document so that (hopefully)
consensus can be obtained at that time on some of the core issues. In
particular, one of the more radical innovations in ISO 639-3 is the
introduction of an addition type of identifier, which I have called (for
lack of any better term) a “macro-language identifier”. (Those who have
reviewed the CD for ISO 639-3 will have seen this notion described
already.) It is essential that we establish immediately whether the JAC
members find this innovation acceptable. (Of course, there will also be
input on this matter from TC 37 P-member bodies who submitted their
response to the ballot on the CD, the results of which have been coming
in.) The doc I have made available now explains the meaning and intent of
this notion, and enumerates the instances in which I suspect it should be
applied. Ultimately, I will be needing consensus both on the decision to
use this notion, and on the specific cases in which it is to be applied. I
would like to see both resolved as soon as possible, but it would be
especially helpful to have the former resolved by the end of that meeting.
JAC members not attending should, of course, have an opportunity to provide
input; I hope this week and next will be sufficient time in which to
consider at least the first of those two matters.
Peter Constable
|