Agree
Eeva M.
Peter Constable wrote:
> I also agree.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Joan Spanne
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:42 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request (fwd)
>
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> Having listened in on much of the recent IETF discussion regarding the
> issues, I also am in favor of the expanded meaning.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Joan
>
> *christian <[log in to unmask]>*
> Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
>
> 2008-03-19 09:09 AM
>
> Please respond to
> ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> To
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
>
>
>
> Re: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request (fwd)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> This is so obvious and necessary that I can only be in favour of adding this
> to the codes.
>
> Best 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 - F:+43-1-524 0606-99
> [log in to unmask] - 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
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Mittwoch, 19. März 2008 14:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request (fwd)
>
> I am in favor of adding to the code for "No linguistic content" the term
> "Not applicable". See below.
>
> We have said in the past that we don't need to ballot the addition of
> alternative names in ISO 639-2 unless it is controversial. So unless I
> hear objections, I will add it.
>
> Rebecca
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:30:03 -0400
> From: NDMSO <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> Subject: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request
>
>
> ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request.
>
> English name of Language: No Linguistic Content
> French name of Language: Pas de contenu linguistique
> iso_639_2_b: zxx
> iso_639_2_t: zxx
>
> change_requested: I would like to request that the semantic of this tag
> be broadened to \"Not applicable.\" When the original use case for this
> tag was being discussed in the IETF LTRU working group, we talked about
> whether it should be coded as \"not applicable\" or \"no linguistic
> content.\"
>
> In the context of a standard for language identification, I always thought
> it was more appropriate to indicate that human language identification was
> \"not applicable\" to the content being described, rather than declare
> something that couldn\'t be described with an ISO language tag as having
> no linguistic value. There have been several debates about this tag since
> its creation relating to specific use cases.
>
> It has become clear that in most of the use cases designed to be served by
> this tag, it is more accurate to indicate that language identification is
> not applicable to the text. Some of these scenarios include code snippets
> found in a technical tutorial, which clearly have some linguistic value,
> but do not merit a ISO 639-2 language tag; invoice or part numbers that
> would not be subject to translation; and my original use case, which was
> identifying the \"audio language\" of a silent film.
>
> I also think this broadening will help accessibility. Code snippets in a
> technical tutorial, for example, are designed to be read by humans, not
> machines. But if I were creating a screenreader, I would probably tell it
> to ignore something tagged as \"no linguistic content.\" This might make
> these technical tutorials rather confusing for my blind programmer
> friends.
>
> I am writing to you at the request of participants on the IETF Languages
> list who believe this change would be an improvement and does not narrow the
> original semantic.
> Submitter's name: Karen Broome
> Submitter's email : [log in to unmask]
> Submitter's status : I work on metadata standards, including language
> coding issues, for Sony Pictures Entertainment and serve on the IETF LTRU
> working group. I am also affiliated with SMPTE (the Society of Motion
> Picture and Television Engineers) where accurate identification of dubbed
> and subtitled language is critical.
>
|