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  April 2007

ISOJAC April 2007

Subject:

Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis

From:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:41:43 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (50 lines)

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

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