LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


[email protected]


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  March 2014

ISOJAC March 2014

Subject:

Re: What is a correct "business case for a new ISO 639" ?

From:

Michael Everson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 6 Mar 2014 20:14:24 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (57 lines)

On 6 Mar 2014, at 17:22, Gérard Lang-Marconnet <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> In fact Michael Everson is proposing no less than:
> 1: “Fr[ee]zing" part 1, that is directly contrary to the current text of ISO 639-1, so so needing to make essential changes in the text of ISO 639-1;

One does not have to make changes in a text to stabilize and “freeze” a standard. There are procedures for that. 

> 2: "Retiring" part 2, that is directly contrary to the current text of ISO 639-2, so needing to make essential changes in the text of ISO 639-2; and what about the standardization of MARC in ISO 639-2/B ?; and what about collective language code elements in part 2 ?

In my opinion, 639-2 is an inadequate subset of ISO 639-3. The /T vs /B lists provide a small number of aliases, which are not problematic. 

What *about* the collective language code elements? What is your point?

> 3: "Modifying the process for the attribution of ISO 639-3 code elements, in the case "of entities that are not controversial" (under the definition that ME does not find these entities controversial ?)",
> so needing to make essential changes in the current text of ISO 639-3;

I don’t believe so. Does the text of that standard state that the RA will only process requests once a year? (I don’t have a copy to hand.) If it does, then I’d revise it. If it doesn’t, then it’s a matter for the RA’s procedures, which do not need to be altered by an ISO ballotting process. 

The text if ISO 15924 does not specify the turnaround time that the 15924/RA uses. The RA just decided its policy. 

> 4: "Changing part 5, so that this standard could become used by anyone, including ME, or transferring the collective language code elements of part 2 in part 5, or even retiring part 5", all of that being directly contrary to the current text of ISO 639-5, so needing to make essential changes in the text of ISO 639-5;

If it isn’t being used, it’s because there’s no need for it. 

> 5: "Retiring, or maybe completely changing ISO 639-6, that is directly contrary to the current text of ISO 639-6, so needing to make essential changes in the text of ISO 639-6. 

I would propose WITHDRAWING ISO 639-6.

> So, if essentially changing the texts of parts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the ISO 639 standard does not constitute a "business case for a new ISO 639", I really would like to know what sort of proposition could be seen as constituting such a "business case” !

It would have perhaps been more helpful had you responded to the actual points I made. Here they are again. 

ISO 639-6 is not useful because it’s a mess.

The granularity of ISO 639-6 would not seem to be useful in a practical way.

What is the risk in “estranging” small and remote” languages in terms of 639-3? Which “small and remote” languages do you mean? (By “remote” I suppose you mean “distant from wealth”.)

Which small languages are increasing in importance, in what sense?

While I am unhappy with the working timetable of the ISO 639-3 RA, and believe that its responsiveness can be improved for entities which are not controversial, I don’t see that the process is so broken given the nature of the changes that have been made in the last while. [You responded t

Is 639-5 actually in use by anyone? Who? Where? [I did NOT suggest changing it so that it becomes useful. I asked if anyone were using it.] 

The Wikipedia provides a single database for access to any code element. No ISO version is required.

The market is met reasonably well by Parts 1, 2, and 3. Wider implementation of Part 3 would be directly helpful to me, as I note.

> however, on the other end of the spectrum, the code elements are the only way to reliably refer to small languages with only sparse resources,
What? Recently I’ve been working with Irish and Cherokee and Osage, all small languages with rather different types of resources available. The code elements I have needed are all in parts 1, 2, and 3 (ga/gle/gle, chr/chr, osa/osa.

We don’t need “code elements” to describe the attributes of such languages. We need an encyclopaedia for that. And we have one.

The revision and expansion of un-used parts of this standard sounds like a kind of “if you build it they will come” standardization, though. I still don’t see a reason to revise all of the parts of ISO 639.

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