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  November 2008

ISOJAC November 2008

Subject:

Re: I hope we didn't make a mistake

From:

Debbie Garside <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:05:25 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (63 lines)

 I think it would be a good idea if we were to establish a system for the
updating of codes within ISO 639 that would include a time period where the
ISO 639 JAC publish its intentions for public comment prior to the change
being further discussed/balloted/adopted.

As I think Christian has alluded to many times, we need to be much more
systematic about these things.

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca S Guenther
> Sent: 18 November 2008 16:25
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: I hope we didn't make a mistake
>
> Dear ISO 639 JAC:
>
> I have someone coming to meet with me tomorrow from the
> Moldovan embassy. He mentioned that the issue has been in the
> press (and Michael forwarded something from the Romanian
> newspaper which I couldn't read-- it has also been in the
> Moldovan newspaper). Of course the whole thing was taken out
> of context and apparently the article in the Moldovan paper
> said that because we made this change that the US government
> supports combining Romanian and Moldovan-- and maybe even in
> their dispute over whether they should be one country (that
> was the implication-- I'm not sure exactly what was said).
> This of course is silly, but shows how important these people
> consider their languages having separate identities.
>
> I will report after my meeting with him, but I did go back
> and look at some old messages (which I wish I had looked at
> before we made this decision a few weeks ago) and found these:
>
> http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=ISOJAC&D=0&I=-
> 3&X=2D31756EB75127516D&P=265
> http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=ISOJAC&D=0&I=-
> 3&X=63517500CB774164C0&P=1117
> The whole conversation took place in July 2005; you can see
> in the archives at:
> http://listserv.loc.gov/listarch/isojac.html
> I am sort of sorry we didn't consult more widely, but I guess
> it is too late now.
>
> I will point out to him that retired code elements do not
> mean that they are not in records. However, we have now
> removed "mo/mol" from our documentation.
> Are there any other options as to how to document this?
> Of course, we have always taken currently unused codes out,
> so this would be a change in our process and I am not sure
> how it would work with our MARC language code list-- it lists
> the deprecated codes in a separate section and not in the main part.
>
> Rebecca
>
>
>
>

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