I think it's clear we would not get a unanimous vote to remove 'mis' from 639-2. Let's stick with clearing up what it is supposed to mean by fixing the name and scope.


Peter



-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milicent K Wewerka
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis

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