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
>
|