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  December 2007

ISOJAC December 2007

Subject:

Re: decision required: "other" collections

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:10:20 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (109 lines)

Peter:

There is a problem with understanding the scope of the language if we
remove "(Other)" and name all these with "Languages". The distinction of
course is that when we use (Other) it means that some of the languages
within the group have their own identifiers, while others go in this
bucket. It alerts the user to make sure that the language in question is
not separately defined by its own identifier. So if we don't make that
distinction it will be hard for the user to know whether to look further.
Perhaps this is an issue of documentation, when you suggest that there
would be application decisions made for a subset. Currently we don't
really have a mechanism to make these sorts of statements. Do you have a
suggestion so that we don't totally lose this information? How could we
document in the ISO 639-2 code lists?

I'm not really concerned about MARC, because we have always said we don't
have to use the same language names, only that the codes themselves
represent the same entities. But some in the bibliographic world (and
beyond) use the documentation on the ISO 639-2 site alone and somehow they
will need to understand the scope of the language.

Rebecca

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Peter Constable wrote:

> Ping?
>
> It's been over a week; I'd like to see us move toward closure on this
> issue, please.
>
>
> Peter
>
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: decision required: "other" collections
>
> I want to revive this discussion so that hopefully we can bring
> closure on it. I introduced two issues at the same time last April,
> "other" collections, and "mis". The latter got people's attention, and
> the former never got resolved. (The mis issue was resolved, so the
> passing mention of it below can be ignored.)
>
> Millicent replied that removing "Other" may be a problem for those
> using ISO 639-2 but not ISO 639-3. I responded to that suggesting that
> this can be considered an application decision. Havard further
> responded mentione 639-5 in the context of the entire 639 family
> suggesting that 639-2 may be one of many possible subsets in which the
> meaning of "other" would differ - the implication being that each
> subset needs to define the intension or extension of collections
> considered to be "other" collections in relation to the given subset.
> (Havard's message, which includes what Millicent and I wrote, is
> attached.)
>
> I note that the code table in ISO 639-5 FDIS does not include
> "(Other)" in any entries, including the entries for all of the "other"
> collections currently in 639-2.
>
> My proposal to remove "other" as described below stands.
>
>
> Peter
>
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
>
> One of the issues I had identified was that the exclusive "other"
> collections no longer make sense in a general application of ISO 639
> since now every known language has its own identifier. It was not an
> issue that absolutely needed to be addressed before part 3 was
> published, but part 3 is now published, and users of the standards are
> encountering this issue. Specifically, the group that works on IETF
> language tags is currently revising that spec to incorporate part 3
> and would like to see all the collections handled consistently in a
> way that allows their application to treat them all as inclusive.
>
> So, I propose that "other" be removed from all collection names
> (except perhaps mis - I'll discuss that in another thread). I
> understand that some applications, such as MARC, would still want to
> treat some collections as exclusive. I don't see this change as
> contradicting that: we simply need to clarify that, in a particular
> application that does not use all of the identifiers in the combined
> parts of ISO 639, particular collections may be used in an exclusive
> manner, at the discretion of the particular application.
>
> Proposed change: make all collections to be of one type with one
> pattern for naming.
>
> Action if accepted:
>
> * ISO 639-2 tables and the draft table for ISO 639-5: all names of the
> form "Foo (Other)" changed to "Foo languages". A note added in
> appropriate places explaining that applications may use collections in
> an exclusive manner according to the needs of the particular
> application. (Corresponding changes should get made in a revision to
> the text of ISO 639-2.)
>
> * ISO 639-3: A note added in description of collection scope
> explaining that applications may use collections in an exclusive
> manner according to the needs of the particular application.
>
>
>
> 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