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  April 2007

ISOJAC April 2007

Subject:

Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:58:08 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (101 lines)

I'm sorry, we still have a need for this "mis" code because of the
criteria for establishing language identifiers in 639-2. There isn't a
need for it if all individual languages are coded, as in 639-3, but there
are some languages that don't fall into any apparent language group that
we can use if they don't meet the criteria for their own identifier. What
those languages are is included in the MARC language code list under
Miscellaneous languages, Collected code for: (a list of named languages).

So we would be willing to document the meaning of "mis" so that it is
clearer what it means. Right now we have no notes or explanations within
the 639-2 list itself, but we might be able to link to an explanation. 

Rebecca

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Yes, I agree.

> On the other hand - having this degree of granularity and detailedness
> - I think that "mis" is not needed any longer and its use should be
> discouraged. (of course it still exists in "old" data)
> 
> Given the fact that everybody uses it differently, it is a /small,
> but.../ barrier in data exchange and for "semantic interoperability" -
> and we want to make such barriers disappear for the sake of semIO.

> rgds
> Christian
> 
> --
> Dr. Christian Galinski, Director
> Infoterm - International Information Centre for Termninology
> Mariahilfer Strasse 123/3, 1060 Vienna, Austria
> TEL +43-664-3446181 - FAX +43-1-524 0606-99
> http://www.infoterm.info - [log in to unmask]
> _______________________________________
> Founded in 1971 by UNESCO to promote and organize 
> co-operation in the field of terminology worldwide 
> 
> 
> ---- "Håvard  Hjulstad" <[log in to unmask]> schrieb:
> >  
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > In the work with 639-5 I touched upon the issue of "other" ("rest groups"). In the future, where some users use the entire 639 set, while others use subsets (of which 639-2 obviously will be the most frequent, at least in the beginning), the meaning of "other" will differ. In a data exchange situation the intension of a "rest group" needs to be specified by listing the items that are not included in the "rest group" (explicitly, or by reference to a defined subset, e.g. 639-2).
> > 
> > There is mention of this in 639-4. That description may need to be improved.
> > 
> > Håvard
> > 
> > --------------------
> > Håvard Hjulstad
> >   Standard Norge / Standards Norway
> >   [log in to unmask]
> > --------------------
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:56 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
> > 
> > I think it needs to be left to an application to decide whether they need to treat any collection as an "Other" collection. The problem is that treating them as "Other" collections in ISO 639 forces them to be problematic for *every* application. They are problematic in that they are not stable and are not clearly defined; even in a 639-2 usage context, the meaning of at least one "Other" collection changes whenever an individual language is added to 639-2.
> > 
> > That's why I think the appropriate thing to do is remove "Other" from the names in our tables, but make clear that applications can use any collection, as appropriate for that application, as an "other" collection. The instructions in the text of 639-2 that an individual-language ID should be used whenever one is available entails that some collections will be used for "other" cases whether they are named that way or not.
> > 
> > And keep in mind, with the current inventory in 639-2, some of the "X languages" collections are already cases that would be used as "other" collections because there are some individual language entries that would fall in that collection; e.g. alg. Similarly, there are some "Other" collections that really should be "X languages" collections because none of the individual languages in the class is coded; e.g. paa. So, at present, the use of "Other" in 639-2 is not in good shape, even if it made sense to keep the distinction.
> > 
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milicent K Wewerka
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:27 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
> > 
> > I think the removal of "Other" may be a problem for those who opt to use ISO639-2 as their standard without using 639-3.  For those users the implication of "Other" is helpful and clear.  It indicates that languages that have separate codes are not included.
> > 
> > Milicent Wewerka
> > 
> > >>> Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 04/19/07 4:27 PM >>>
> > One of the issues I had identified was that the exclusive "other" collections no longer make sense in a general application of ISO 639 since now every known language has its own identifier. It was not an issue that absolutely needed to be addressed before part 3 was published, but part 3 is now published, and users of the standards are encountering this issue. Specifically, the group that works on IETF language tags is currently revising that spec to incorporate part 3 and would like to see all the collections handled consistently in a way that allows their application to treat them all as inclusive.
> > 
> > So, I propose that "other" be removed from all collection names (except perhaps mis - I'll discuss that in another thread). I understand that some applications, such as MARC, would still want to treat some collections as exclusive. I don't see this change as contradicting that: we simply need to clarify that, in a particular application that does not use all of the identifiers in the combined parts of ISO 639, particular collections may be used in an exclusive manner, at the discretion of the particular application.
> > 
> > Proposed change: make all collections to be of one type with one pattern for naming.
> > 
> > Action if accepted:
> > 
> > *         ISO 639-2 tables and the draft table for ISO 639-5: all names of the form "Foo (Other)" changed to "Foo languages". A note added in appropriate places explaining that applications may use collections in an exclusive manner according to the needs of the particular application. (Corresponding changes should get made in a revision to the text of ISO 639-2.)
> > 
> > *         ISO 639-3: A note added in description of collection scope explaining that applications may use collections in an exclusive manner according to the needs of the particular application.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Peter
> 

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