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  October 2006

ISOJAC October 2006

Subject:

reference name and alternate names (was RE: Forms of names for Part 3)

From:

Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:09:22 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (218 lines)

I'm at a conference in N. Carolina that Gary Simons is also at and we discussed this some this evening. We're both inclined to think that the JAC should review how names have been handled in parts 1 and 2 and to reconsider the scalability. 

A big issue is that there are *lots* of different names a language might go by. When we codify (say) "ast, Asturian" in ISO 639, we are not standardizing a particular name; rather, we are standardizing an association between the code element "ast" and a particular language that is designated by the name "Asturian". The primary purpose of that name as part of the code table is administrative: it serves to designate what the semantic behind that particular entry is and gives us the means to distinguish that semantic from some other semantic.

As comparison, in ISO/IEC 10646 (Universal Character Set), the essential data in an entry is the code point and the character name: the code point is the codification of the semantic, and the character name serves to designate what the semantic is and to distinguish that semantic from others. 

There's an essential point to note here: that name is *not* intended primarily as a means for users to find the character they are looking for. Indeed, characters can have different names and users might know a character by a different name that the name that is used. And when a user comes along saying, "Please encode such-and-such a character," that being one we consider already encoded, we don't respond by changing the name; rather, we might add supplementary information -- an alias or other annotation -- that allows the user to recognize the intent of the already-encoded character.

The problem of alternate names is far worse for languages than it is for characters. We can keep tweaking the name field for an entry -- from "Asturian" to "Asturian; Bable" to "Asturian; Bable; Leonese" to ... -- and there may be no end to it. These tweaks don't change the semantic at all or change what things are differentiated -- in other words, the change doesn't enhance anything in relation to the primary purpose of the name; all it does is change how the semantic is designated.

My point is, up to now we haven't distinguished between name as administrative data that we use to designate a coded semantic and alternative names that users might search for in a list. This creates some problems:

- First, as mentioned, the number of alternates can be large, particularly if we consider names for a language that are used in different languages as well as different spellings (ways of transcribing) that might be used. (E.g. chu has five English names listed, not counting inverted forms, and this example doesn't even have issues of alternate spellings or transcriptions for non-English sounds.)

- Secondly, it means that there is no stable coding-neutral way to refer to an entry. That lack of stability becomes a problem for others that use our standard. For example, if someone wants to document that the ISO 639 entry for Asturian is something that can be referenced in their protocol, then we force them to update their documentation each time we change the name -- from "Asturian" to "Asturian; Bable" to ...


Thus, I'm suggesting that, going forward, we might want to consider a different approach in which we make a distinction between (i) a reference name which serves an administrative purpose within the standard, (ii) lists of alternate names by which users might know a given language and (iii) ancillary information we might provide or make use of to help users to know what the intended semantic is for a given entry.

In drafting 639-3, we took this approach to some extent: we used a reference name (that was done for purely practical reasons), and the web site provided links from entries in the code table to entries in Ethnologue or Linguist List with additional info to clarify the intended semantic. The only thing that Gary and I didn't do was consider how to deal with alternate names -- though I gather that Joan has been looking into that.

IIRC, ISO 11179 distinguishes between an administrative reference name for an entity and alternate labels that users might have for it. So, if TC37 is really wanting to move toward ISO 11179 implementation for all of their data category registries, then it seems to me like this would be a step in that direction.

(Btw, if we were to decide to move in this direction, I don't think getting it implemented for 639-1/-2 would be a prerequisite for completing initial publication of 639-3; but knowing if that was our plan might have a bearing on what actions Joan might or might not need to take in follow up on the open issues to resolve that we're starting to process.)


Peter



-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debbie Garside
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Forms of names for Part 3 [was Rarotongan; Cook Islands Maori - Discussion]

From memory, I think that the text of ISO 639-3 actually states that there
is a "reference name" and that it is not intended to infer that it is the
preferred name. I think it has to be this way for just the very reason that
you state.  Otherwise we would be discussing the "preferred reference name"
of every language for a very long time. 

I also think there is good reason for having a "reference name" as it can be
interchanged with the alpha3 if people prefer to use the "reference name"
rather than the "sign". 

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milicent K Wewerka
> Sent: 25 October 2006 20:47
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Forms of names for Part 3 [was Rarotongan; Cook 
> Islands Maori - Discussion]
> 
> I think having a separate "reference name" is going to cause 
> problems.  Various advocates for a specific language will 
> want their particular preferred name to be the "reference name."
> 
> Milicent Wewerka, Library of Congress
> 
> >>> [log in to unmask] 10/25/06 1:12 PM >>>
> I was discussing names, alternate names and inverted name 
> forms with Gary Simons yesterday. Inverted forms could be 
> treated distinctly, or could be treated as just another 
> alternate form (since many names are a single word, and 
> inversion is meaningless). I am leaning toward treating 
> inverted forms like any other alternate form, mostly because 
> of the ramifications of my second question.
> 
> The second question I have is whether there should be a 
> single "reference name" (that would appear, for example, in 
> the download table of the code set), with alternate names in 
> a separate index (a separate download table). When viewing 
> the code set on the web by language name, all names would 
> appear in the list individually, and the documentation page 
> for an individual element would list all forms of the name. 
> The alternative to this (that I see) is to list all forms of 
> the name with a separator for the reference name (as LoC does 
> for part 2, with English and French separately), both on the 
> website and in the download table.
> 
> I prefer the first option as a cleaner approach for users of 
> the downloadable code tables. The second option (all names 
> separated by a
> semicolon) puts parsable data in a single field, adding a 
> step unnecessarily for system administrators.
> 
> This has major implications for our website design, so if the 
> JAC wants to give guidance, please do--soon.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: ISO 639 
> Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> 10/25/2006 10:39 AM
> Please respond to
> ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> To
> [log in to unmask] 
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: Change in ISO 639-2 code - Rarotongan; Cook Islands Maori - 
> Discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The change looks good to me.
>  
> I have one question for Joan: I'm not sure how the DB for the 
> 639-3 site 
> is set up now, but do you need to record inverted forms of 
> names? If so, 
> when a user selects the inverted-name view should they see 
> "Maori, Cook 
> Islands"? 
>  
> Generalizing, when we as a committee are approving names, should be 
> approving inverted forms as well? There's a further question 
> here: Do we 
> want to allow for the SIL site with its dynamic reports to shown an 
> inverted form that the static reports on the LOC site do not show?
>  
>  
> Peter
>  
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
> Of Håvard Hjulstad
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: Re: Change in ISO 639-2 code - Rarotongan; Cook 
> Islands Maori - 
> Discussion?
>  
> Dear JAC members,
> As far as I can see, this is a name change request that can be 
> accommodated.
> Current encoding in ISO 639-2 is [identifier - English name - 
> French name 
> - indigenous name]
> rar - Rarotongan - rarotonga - (not available).
> The proposal is the following:
> rar - Rarotongan; Cook Islands Maori - rarotonga; maori des îles Cook
> Should you have any comments, please submit them by 10 
> November; otherwise 
> the name change will be accepted.
> Best regards,
> Håvard
> 
> --------------------
> Håvard Hjulstad
> mailto:[log in to unmask] 
> --------------------
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rebecca S. Guenther [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 3:59 PM
> To: Håvard Hjulstad
> Subject: Change in ISO 639-2 code (fwd)
> 
> This seems to be a request to change the name. I would 
> suggest we add the 
> alternative name. Please process.
> 
> Rebecca
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 05:28:29 -0400
> From: WWW generic account <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: Change in ISO 639-2 code
> 
> This data was submitted on: Sunday, July 16, 2006 at 05:28:29
> 
> lang_in_eng_change = Cook Islands Maori
> lang_in_fre_change = Maori des îles Cook 
> iso_639_2_b = 
> iso_639_2_t = 
> change_requested = According to Cook Islands Legislation, 
> Rarotongan is 
> dialectal variation of Cook Islands Maori. Localy they just 
> call it Maori. 
> It is close to (New Zealand) Maori though a distinct language 
> See Te reo 
> Maori act (2003) http://www.paclii.org/ck/legis/num_act/trma2003130/ 
> 
> See also the Cook Islands Maori in New Zealand Curriculum 
> (New Zealand 
> Ministry of education) 
> http://www.minedu.govt.nz/web/downloadable/dl3550_v1/cookis.pdf 
> submit_name = Laurent Nevers
> submit_email = [log in to unmask] 
> submit_status = I'm a lecturer at the INALCO in Paris, doing some 
> researches on Cook Islands Maori and i have no legitimacy to 
> propose any 
> new ISO Code. It is up to the local ministry of culture unless they 
> already accept rar ??? Did you contact them ???
> http://www.culture.gov.ck/ 
> 
> Cordialy yours,
> Laurent Nevers
> 
> 
> 
> 

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