We do need to keep it in 639-2. It is used only as a last resort and
perhaps there is a way to discourage people from using it. But we do want
to keep the MARC list in sync with 639-2.
Rebecca
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Milicent K Wewerka wrote:
> I think "mis" needs to be included in 639-2. Certainly we want to keep
> it in the MARC list.
>
> Milicent Wewerka, Library of Congress
>
> >>> Christian Galinski <[log in to unmask]> 05/15/07 4:50 PM
> >>>
> I think that it is a good solution to change the scope attribute of
> *mis*
> from *collective* to *special purpose* - and not to include it
> in 639-2.
> The use of "mis" as an easy way out (of a bit of investigation) should
> definitely be discouraged in the wording of the scope.
>
> Regards
> Christian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Christian Galinski, Director
> Infoterm - International Information Centre for Terminology
> Mariahilfer Strasse 123/3, A-1060 Vienna, Austria
> T: +43-664-344 6181
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] -
> <http://linux.infoterm.org/> http://www.infoterm.info
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Founded in 1971 by UNESCO to promote and organize
> co-operation in the field of terminology worldwide
> __________________________________________________
> THIS E-MAIL HAS BEEN SCANNED FOR ALL KNOWN VIRUSES
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of
> Peter Constable
> Sent: Dienstag, 15. Mai 2007 18:23
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
>
>
>
> I*m assuming you*ll be sending this out shortly. Even though it is
> in 639-2,
> there is also a question as to whether its scope is *collection* or
> *special
> purpose*. If it is *collection* then it would become part of
> 639-5 but not
> be in 639-3. On the other hand, if it is *special purpose*, then it
> would
> get added to ISO 639-3.
>
>
>
> So, I think you should modify the ballot to include the question of
> scope:
>
>
>
> ___ I agree to change the scope attribute of *mis* from
> *collective* to
> *special purpose*.
>
> ___ I do not agree.
>
>
>
> If there*s agreement on that point, it would automatically get
> included in
> 639-3, so a question on the ballot regarding inclusion in 639-3
> isn*t
> needed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of
> Håvard Hjulstad
> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 4:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
>
>
>
> I can prepare a ballot. Since it is actually an ISO 639-2 issue, I
> guess we
> do it according to the "old" procedure.
>
>
>
> Håvard
>
>
>
> --------------------
>
> Håvard Hjulstad
>
> Standard Norge / Standards Norway
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
>
> --------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of
> Peter Constable
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
>
> We had several comments in support of *uncoded languages*. I*d
> like to
> propose that name change, and suggest that if a ballot is needed that
> we get
> that done ASAP. People in IETF are looking for this to get clarified.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter
>
|