LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


[email protected]


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  May 2005

ISOJAC May 2005

Subject:

Re: Serbo-Croatian in 639-2

From:

Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 27 May 2005 11:54:02 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of
> Milicent K Wewerka


>         I have a few comments from the historical perspective since I
have been
> involved with the development of 639-2 from the beginning.

Thanks for the very helpful historical review. I'll offer some comments
in response in support of a position that adding S-C to 639-2 is
feasible; I hope in doing so I don't leave an impression that I discount
any of your concerns. 


>         Parts 639-1 and 639-2 are intended to supply only one choice
for a particular
> text or other application.

I believe that intent is largely realized, but as you note there is an
exception in the case of Norwegian; some might argue that
Moldavian/Romanian and Akan/Fanti/Twi are also exceptions.


> Part 639-1 has entries only for individual languages.  Part
> 639-2 has entries for some individual languages and collective entries
for other
> languages.

I agree that this has been the intent, though I think this too has
exceptions: one of the pending issues to resolve is the treatment of
"qu" (Quechua), which really must be reanalyzed as a macrolanguage or a
collection.


>         The addition of Serbo-Croatian to 639-2 would produce
confusion in selection of
> a code for Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian.  Some users would apply the
individual
> codes; others would apply the code for Serbo-Croatian.

We need to distinguish two issues here:

- When someone is tagging an information object, will they have problems
knowing what tag to use?

- When someone is searching for an information object with particular
language properties, will the query retrieve all the items of interest
for them?

I think the first is reasonably straightforward: if it is unclear which
specific variety is used or if the application scenario does not require
distinguish between specific varieties, then the more generic category
is used; if the specific variety is known and the distinctions are
useful in the application scenario, then use the more specific
categories.

The second is less straightforward: it isn't a difficult problem, but it
does require investment. This issue requires software processes to be
designed so as to provide appropriate matching. E.g., if a user requests
"Serbo-Croatian" items, then items tagged as being in "Serbian" or
"Bosnian" or "Croatian" will match; if the user asks for "Croatian",
then items tagged as "Serbo-Croatian" may or may not be considered match
depending upon particular application implementation choices (or
possibly a user-selectable option).


> The existence of a code for
> Serbo-Croatian would imply that there are some language or dialect
forms that are
> not included in the codes for Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian.

Not necessarily; I'd say no, in fact: Serbo-Croatian would be considered
a macrolanguage, and there would be normative macro-language mappings in
639-3 indicating that the macrolanguage Serbo-Croatian encompasses the
three individual languages Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. I realize that
these mappings are not part of 639-2; but I think we have been looking
ahead toward a point at which the alpha-3 space now divided between
639-2, 639-3 and 639-5 will be treated as a whole.


>         The situation of Norwegian, which has been cited as similar,
has caused
> difficulties in applying the code in the library world.  The Library
of Congress had to
> issue an announcement that it would use  "nor" and that the other
codes would not
> used.

Presumably any application of ISO 639-2, such as the MARC language code
list (I'm assuming it's reasonable to characterize it as such) can
choose to prohibit the use of any given entry in 639-2 in that
application, including "nor" or Serbo-Croatian.

 

>         For the library community adding a code for Serbo-Croatian in
639-2 would be
> problematic.

In view of the above, it's not clear to me to what extent it would be
problematic. Also, I recall Rebecca on some occasion commenting that
librarians had problems with the lack of a code for Serbo-Croatian since
even native speakers could not always determine how to catalogue items.
It would seem that the addition of S-C might solve some problems for
librarians, though in the short term it might raise issues that needed
to be dealt with.


>         The best solution seems to be to deprecate the entry for
Serbo-Croatian in 639-
> 1 as was originally intended.

I don't know to what extent this was discussed when 639-2 was being
developed. I hope it would be considered only with great caution as I
think there is a reasonable likelihood that "sh" may be in current usage
somewhere.



Peter Constable

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