LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  June 2007

ISOJAC June 2007

Subject:

Re: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"

From:

Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:15:26 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (203 lines)

I don't think there's a problem with my account. Thanks.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debbie Garside
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"

Hi Rebecca

I just clicked "reply to all" to Peter's message on IETF-languages with a
"+1" indicating my support. I don't think there is anything wrong with the
account as I received it via the JAC too.

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: 19 June 2007 14:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"
>
> I guess Peter wrote this message, although forwarded from
> Debbie (is there a problem with your account on the list?)
>
> Thank you for writing this message-- very well stated and I
> hope that will put an end to the discussion in terms of what
> the JAC has to see.
>
> Rebecca
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
> >
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter
> > Constable
> > Sent: 18 June 2007 18:17
> > To: LTRU Working Group
> > Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
> > [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: RE: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"
> >
> >
> >
> > As far as the JAC is concerned, the intentional semantic of
> "mis" is
> > what it has always been. As for the extension, when 639-2
> was the only
> > alpha-3 code, there was only one context to evaluate the extension
> > that would be derived by that intention; 639-2 did not document the
> > extension, though at least one application of 639-2 - MARC
> - did. With
> > the introduction of 639-3 and the pending introduction of 639-5 as
> > additions to the alpha-3 space, it becomes clear that the extension
> > must be determined within a context: the cases where you'd
> want to use
> > "mis" differ if you're using 639-3 rather than 639-2. But for an
> > application of a given part of 639, the change of reference
> name has
> > had no effect on the extension for that context: the languages
> > encompassed by "mis" in a 639-2 application, for instance,
> are the same as they were before.
> >
> >
> >
> > When it comes to BCP 47, the change of reference name for "mis" is
> > basically irrelevant because there is a much bigger issue: in
> > RFC4646bis, BCP 47 will change from being an application of
> 639-1 and
> > -2 to being an application of 639-1, -2 and -3. That change
> of context
> > is what creates the issue wrt interoperability of "mis" in
> > applications of BCP 47: Under RFC 4646, Burushaski content would be
> > tagged "mis"; under RFC 4646bis, one would expect new Burushaski
> > content to be tagged "bsk". There's no basis for
> > matching: that's an interop problem. And note that it has
> nothing to
> > do with stability of "mis" supposedly introduced with the
> name change:
> > with or without that change, Burushaski content would be tagged
> > differently before and after.
> >
> >
> >
> > And note that this issue exists whether one considers "old mis" to
> > have the semantic that Keld is stuck on, 'all languages', or the
> > semantic that the JAC has always intended: either way, it is the
> > addition of 639-3 to BCP 47 that creates an issue for uses
> of "mis" under BCP 47, not the name change.
> >
> >
> >
> > And even without the addition of 639-3, "mis" would have
> interop issues:
> > assuming the semantic the JAC has always assumed, the
> extension in the
> > context of 639-2 could narrow - inherently by the nature of the
> > semantic - any time a new entry was added; but assuming the 'all
> > languages' semantic, one could end up with comparable
> content tagged
> > in non-comparable ways, "mis" and something else.
> >
> >
> >
> > Therefore, I suggest that beating up ISO as not being in
> tune with the
> > needs of the IT community is both fruitless and baseless, and is
> > ignoring the fact that IETF has problems all of its own making. If
> > IETF really wanted to avoid any stability or interop
> problems related
> > to "mis", it should never have permitted its use in
> language tags, starting back in RFC 1766, because "mis"
> > has always had stability / interop issues. But that horse
> is long out
> > of the
> > barn: "mis" *can* be used in language tags under RFCs from 1766 to
> > 4646. The LTRU WG within IETF needs to decide what to do
> about that in RFC 4646bis.
> > That's a job for IETF; we don't need to continue bothering
> JAC members
> > with IETF issues.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:23 AM
> > To: Peter Constable
> > Cc: Kent Karlsson; Milicent K Wewerka; John Cowan; [log in to unmask];
> > [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
> > [log in to unmask]; LTRU Working Group
> > Subject: Re: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"
> >
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, ISO codes have somewhat of an impedance
> mismatch with
> > the needs of the IT community; in particular, stability.
> Thus BCP 47
> > has to stabilize those codes; one of the main reasons for the
> > existence of RFC 4646. What that means is that if ISO tries
> to narrow
> > the meaning of *any* code, whether it is a "clarification"
> or not, we
> > have really only two
> > choices:
> >
> > 1. Keep the broader semantic, which encompasses the new ISO narrow
> > one, or 2. Deprecate the code (in one way or another).
> >
> > Unlike many other codes, "mis" is one that we can do without, so #2
> > was a reasonable choice.
> >
> > What I was trying to come up with language that we could
> agree on even
> > though we have very different views on the utility and meaning of
> > 'mis'. It sounds like we are ok on the suggested language
> on the other
> > thread, so I'm hoping that we can put "mis" to bed.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 6/16/07, Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:
> >
> > From: Kent Karlsson [mailto: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > [log in to unmask]]
> >
> > > With the "old mis" one could correctly apply 'mis' as a language
> > > code for any language
> >
> > That has *never* been the intent of ISO 639. It is an external
> > interpretation, admittedly possible because ISO 639 was not fully
> > explicit up to now. But from the perspective of the JAC,
> the "new mis"
> > is exactly the same "mis" as the "old mis".
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark
> >
> >
>
>

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