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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  August 2007

ISOJAC August 2007

Subject:

Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:03:22 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (207 lines)

Havard will need to send out a ballot to the JAC voting members to
formally approve it.

Rebecca

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Joan Spanne wrote:

> I will add it immediately. SIL's intention is that the the jointly held 
> elements of Parts 2 and 3 should always be as closely in sync as possible. 
> Since the tables we have on the 639-3 website actually do also include the 
> collective codes of Part 2, even a new collective code gets added to my 
> database for management tracking, though it is not included in the Part 3 
> download files. This would be similar for any change to Part 1, also.
> 
> The plan is to process annual batches of changes. This year there are two 
> batches because of the backlog of requests during the final draft phase of 
> the standard in 2006 (since we in SIL were under the impression that the 
> FDIS code set was to be stable, as it had been included in the voting 
> process). We certainly hope the rate of change will settle down after this 
> year. I have over 140 new change requests to be considered, and there are 
> more coming in daily.
> 
> -Joan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 
> Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> 2007-08-01 08:02 PM
> Please respond to
> ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> To
> [log in to unmask]
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joan’s approach makes sense to me.
>  
> Joan, can you clarify: if something is approved for 639-2 and is an 
> appropriate addition for 639-3 (i.e. not a collection), will you update 
> the 639-3 records immediately, or add it into the next batch of changes to 
> be published as part of 639-3 semi-annually (or whatever the frequency 
> is)?
>  
> Thanks
> Peter
>  
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
> Of Joan Spanne
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:53 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - 
> Discussion
>  
> 
> I have no problem with the JAC just balloting--and approving--it for 
> 639-2, in which case it is automatically added to 639-3. I had said as 
> much during that teleconference, that if an identifier is going to be 
> considered for 639-2, it should just go through the existing 639-2 process 
> of JAC discussion and balloting, and if approved, it enters both parts. If 
> not approved, then it could be considered for 639-3, if warranted. 
> 
> The exceptions to this would be 
> 1) it is a collective code element, and does not get included in Part 3 
> 2) it causes a conflict with something in Part 3, in which case I alert 
> the JAC to that problem during the discussion phase, and specific issues 
> are addressed 
> 
> I see no problem with Blissymbols... 
> Vote: yes 
> 
> -Joan 
> 
> 
> "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]> 
> Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> 
> 2007-07-31 03:14 PM 
> 
> 
> Please respond to
> ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> 
> To
> [log in to unmask] 
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since this was in the pipeline for ISO 639-2, shouldn't it have been
> considered in the same for 639-3? 
> 
> To clarify the process... If we get a request for 639-2, first we see if
> it's in 639-3 and propose it for 639-2 if it meets the criteria. If it is
> requested for 639-2 and it isn't in 639-3, it then gets requested for
> both, (assuming it meets the criteria)? It probably should have been
> requested for 639-3 during the last revision period since it was submitted
> in 2006, but I guess it looks like it fell between the cracks. 
> 
> Rebecca
> 
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Joan Spanne wrote:
> 
> > The process to submit a request for 639-3 starts with a form:
> > 
> > (change request type 5)
> > and continues with another form (since this is for a new language, not a 
> 
> > change to an existing code element)
> > 
> > 
> > The next round of requests will be up for formal consideration Sept - 
> Dec. 
> > and the outcomes will be announced in January 2008. So this will not 
> > enable you to make your announcement, Michael. My apologies.
> > 
> > -Joan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Håvard  Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]> 
> > Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> > 2007-07-31 11:17 AM
> > Please respond to
> > ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> > 
> > 
> > To
> > [log in to unmask]
> > cc
> > 
> > Subject
> > Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am not at home and close to my papers, but from what I can see from 
> > email exchanges you are indeed right that the item was discussed (with 
> no 
> > negative submissions, as far as I can see), and that no ballot has been 
> > circulated.
> > However, we cannot process this item for ISO 639-2 without consideration 
> 
> > for ISO 639-3. It should indeed be processed for ISO 639-3 now. 
> > Subsequently we should consider whether encoding in ISO 639-2 would also 
> 
> > be needed.
> > What is the status in 639-3? I don't see that from where I am sitting 
> > right now.
> > Best regards,
> > Håvard
> > 
> > --------------------
> > Håvard Hjulstad
> >   Standard Norge / Standards Norway
> >   [log in to unmask]
> > --------------------
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
> 
> > Of Michael Everson
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:47 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - 
> > Discussion
> > 
> > At 09:39 -0400 2007-07-31, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> > >It looks like this never went out for a vote. Maybe Havard can tell us
> > >its status.
> > 
> > There was no objection raised in any previous discussion. There was some 
> 
> > request for clarification which was provided.
> > 
> > It would be lovely if I could inform the Bliss group here in Dundee that 
> 
> > "zbl" is approved for Blissymbols.
> > --
> > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> > 
> 
> 

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