well, I still am against "mis", because I think it violates the very pronciples of standardization. Users can use the symbols of another part of the 639 series - which in any case will become ONE repository before long (hopefully!)
But if colleagues insist on something like "mis", I would definitely prefer "unsupported by ISO 639-1" or "unsupported by ISO 639-2" (not only just "unsupported")
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
---- Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> schrieb:
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
>
> > 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...
>
> I agree that there's a need for 639-2. Even given 639-3, there's a possibility that some user may want to tag content declaring some language not known to 639-3.
>
> Also, as Havard indicated, in general an application of ISO 639 may choose to use a subset of the IDs available in ISO 639. I'm assuming that 'mis' is intended to be the general "other" category, and so should be defined in a general way. For example, an application might specify the set of ISO 639 IDs it uses to be {"fre", "deu", "spa", "mis"}, in which case that application would use "mis" for all languages other than French, German and Spanish. (That's not a very realistic example, but it illustrates the principle.)
>
> If there's agreement on that intent, here's some possible text:
>
> -----------------
> "mis" is provided in ISO 639 for use to identify linguistic content for which the language is not covered by the individual-language, macrolanguage or collection identifiers used in a given application context. It is commonly used when the range of language identifiers is constrained in a given application context, particularly applications that specify use of ISO 639-2 (MARC, for example). In general, applications of ISO 639 may choose to use a subset of the identifiers in ISO 639, and the inventory of languages encompassed by "mis" for that application context would be determined in relation to the other identifiers used by that application. It may also be used in the event that some human language is discovered that is not yet coded in ISO 639-3.
>
> It should be noted that "mis" is subject to potential instability. For instance, the inventory of languages included in ISO 639-2 may change over time. If a new language is added to ISO 639-2, then the set of language covered by "mis" in an application of ISO 639-2 would narrow. For example, prior to August 16, 2005, "ain" was not included in ISO 639-2, and the only available identifier in ISO 639-2 covering the Ainu language of Japan would have been "mis"; but since that date, "ain" has been included in ISO 639-2, and so "mis" would no longer be considered to include Ainu. As a result, Ainu records to which "mis" has been applied would need to have been revised on that date to avoid mis-identification of the language.
>
> In general, it is recommended that "mis" not be applied to a record unless a language identifier is required and no other identifier encompassing the language of the record is available in the given application context.
> -----------------
>
>
> A related issue is what scope property should be attributed to "mis". Because of the use of "languages" in the name, it currently appears to be a collection. But all other collections are defined in terms of inclusion of some class of languages. "mis" is defined in an exceptional way, in terms of exclusion of languages covered by other IDs. Because of that and the special way in which it should be used, I wonder if it would be better to consider its scope to be "special-purpose" (like "und", "mul", "zxx").
>
> Finally, there's the question of whether a different name than "Miscellaneous languages" would better reflect the intended meaning. E.g. perhaps "Other languages" or "Unsupported languages".
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Peter
|