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 2013

ISOJAC August 2013

Subject:

AW: draft survey on ISO 639

From:

Christian Galinski <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:30:47 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (165 lines)

Dear Melinda,
Cher Gérard,

Thank you, Melinda, for starting to move ahead. This survey is really
necessary!
In the meantime ISO/TC 37/SC 2 is also doing the follow-ups decided at the
Pretoria meetings: (1) clarifying the proper status of each TC 37/SC 2G 1
member (the present member list is outdated), and hereafter (2) approaching
TC 46 (or is it rather TC 46/SC 4 corresponding to ISO/TC 37/SC 2? - the
umbrella level of the two is the respective TC, if I am correct)

The big difference between ISO 3166 Series and ISO 639 Series is:
(1) ISO 3166 codes within themselves are much more "concrete" and stable (in
spite of all kinds of changes over the years); there are "authorities"
watching and tracking those changes; the potential number of entities is
growing, but so far the entities are much more concrete than those of the
639 codes.
(2) The potential number of entities to be coded in the ISO 639 Series could
become huge; in addition, the semantic entities represented by the 639 codes
are much more "volatile" in terms of subtle/radical changes of vocabulary,
grammar, status etc. Some of these changes are due to academic research
(e.g. language groups, historic levels etc.), but often also subject to
specific theories.
In any case the potential for change in an ever increasing number of
variations of languages will increase more than linear with the growing
number of coded language names.
(3) ISO 639 codes comprise at least 2 major  types (e.g. concerning the
impact on industry, public administration, education etc.):
(a)ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 (ISO 639-3 in the long run to be merged into the
3-letter code) whose codes are considered to be more "standardized" than
those of the other 639-parts an need a higher level of control of stability;
they show a high complexity concerning questions like, what is
differentiating a language from a language variation? how to deal with
different types of "official" character of a language, different kinds of
language names? how to deal with language status? etc. ;
... issues, for which we expect input from the communities dealing with
language documentation.
(b) ISO 639-5 and ISO 639-6 are collections of "entities" most of which are
debated in various communities, and where many different "views" have to be
taken into account - which means that they are not fit for standardization,
but nevertheless represent highly valuable resources to refer to in
standardization. 
(4) the stakeholder of the two types mentioned above differ largely!

If I am wrong please correct.

The original agreement between ISO/TC 37 and ISO/TC 46 "only" referred to
the 3-letter code of ISO 639-2 (later including to some extent ISO 639-1)
and later including ISO 639-3 for scientific and other reasons. The
decisions to include ISO 639-1, ISO 639-3, ISO 639-5 and ISO 639-6 into the
framework of (a) the ISO 639 Series and (b) the scope of ISO 639/RAs-JAC was
taken either by the JAC (and later endorsed by TC 37) or by ISO/TC37/SC 2 to
be taken care of by JAC - If I recall well. Please correct, if you have more
precise records..

To cut a long story short, ISO 639 codings are not fit for being subject to
a maintenance agency (MA) for a number of reasons - not least the ISO rules.
That is why several JAC members and ISO/TC 37/SC 2/WG 1 have discussed and
preferred a sort of "Joint Registration Authority" .
Old ISO/R 639 was developed in the 1960s (?) and taken up again in the 1980s
- since then several RADICAL changes have taken place:
(1) Globalization (G11N) in the 1990s triggered the need for localization
(L10N), whose software platforms and content repositories need /stable/
language codes;
(2) In the 2000s, the field of "language documentation" emerged with a
theoretical and methodological basis for "language description" which can
help to solve problems in language name coding.

In today's industry the time-honored principle of "quick and dirty"
standards  - believe it or not, this was the rule /not exception/ still in
the 1990 in technical standardization - does not suffice any longer
(especially not in the ICT). 
Just think about the beginnings of character coding  in the 1990s and the
highly formalized and differentiated approach of Unicode today! 

To some extent these reflections need to be considered in the survey - your
draft is indeed very useful. 

Best regards
Christian


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im
Auftrag von Gérard Lang-Marconnet
Gesendet: Montag, 5. August 2013 19:20
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: draft survey on ISO 639

Dear Melinda,
Thank you very much.
Let me add that this ISO 639/MA would have , exactly as this is the case of
the ISO 3166/MA I m chairing, the task to maintain (create, delete, change,
reserve every information contained in) the tables of the alpha-2 and
alpha-3 code elements according to the rules written in the normative text
of the future standard ISO 639. In my experience this can only rapidly and
efficiently work if the composition of the Maintenance Agency is not too big
(at most 10 members) and balanced between every interessed community. So
that the current composition of the JAC is a perfect model for this, and
also in the interst of continuity and experience I would recommand nine
members:
- one representative of the terminologic community (like Infoterm, to begin
with);
- one representative of the library community (like the Library of Congress,
to begin with);
- one representative of the linguistic community (like SIL International ,
to begin with) ;
- three representative of TC 37;
- three representative of TC 46.
Every member having a substitute.
Concerning the list of persons to adress the survey, I would think adequate
that every current and past (even substitute) of the ISO 639/RA-JAC be on
the list.
Bien amicalement.
Gérard Lang

 
Le 5 août 2013 à 17:43, Melinda Lyons a écrit :

> Dear Gerard,
> 
> Thank you for your input. I will add the option of a single maintenance
agency as an option for the survey.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> On 8/3/13 3:50 PM, Gérard Lang-Marconnet wrote:
>> Dear Melinda,
>> Thank you for your message.
>> In my opinion, in the case that the texts of the six standards forming
the current parts (or maybe only the five first parts) of ISO 639 would be
united in one single normative text as a revised standard ISO 639, I would
find wise to create a unique ISO 639 Maintenance Agency (ISO 639/MA) to
replace the four current ISO 639 Registration Authorities (ISO 639/RAs) and
the ISO 639/RA-JAC as well. I do not find appropriate to create a single ISO
639 Registration Authority (ISO 639/RA) in this occasion.
>> Bien amicalement.
>> Gérard Lang
>> 
>> 
>> Le 24 juil. 2013 à 23:48, ISO639-3 a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear Members of the Joint Advisory Committee,
>>> 
>>> As many of you know, the TC-37 decided to get input about the possible
revision of ISO 639 before drafting or proposing a New Work Item. Attached
is the survey that has been developed to solicit preliminary input. We
expect to send it to no more than 50 people, to receive input on the current
standard and processes. If further input is needed, we will formulate a
questionnaire as a second step, using input from the survey.
>>> 
>>> Please read through the questions, and let me know if there is something
crucial that should be added before I send it out to a selected list. And if
there are any people that should receive the survey, send the names to Bill
Rivers, at the address listed.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for taking time to read and comment.
>>> 
>>> Melinda Lyons
>>> Secretary,
>>> Joint Advisory Committee
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Survey on ISO639(v2).doc>

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