LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for JACVOTE Archives


JACVOTE Archives

JACVOTE 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

JACVOTE Home

JACVOTE Home

JACVOTE  October 2017

JACVOTE October 2017

Subject:

Re: First Ballot for Montenegrin

From:

"Porteneuve Elisabeth (labo)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ISO JAC Voting Member List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:18:28 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

Le 27/09/2017 à 19:02, Melinda lyons a écrit :
 > Dear JAC Members,
 >
 > ISO 639 RAs-JAC ballot 2017-1 : Montenegrin
 >
 > Please submit your ballot no later than 10 October 2017.
 >
==

Dear All,

Thank you for all comments – I read it attentively. All in all, I am 
inclining in favor of Montenegrin having its own code, as long as 
Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian cannot be "undone" having their own codes. 
Montenegrin has its specific letters ś and ź that cannot be included 
under the umbrella "Serbian", or if yes, then perhaps it should be 
renamed Serbian-Montenegrin.
I recognize that the former Yugoslavia’s languages started more a 
political concept rather than a linguistic one at the time of Yugoslavia 
split. The Yugoslavia’s divisions lasted several years, each new country 
getting its language code with the exception of the last one, 
Montenegro. In addition the last split of two countries is also between 
two scripts, Cyrillic and Latin. Today with more and more databases 
relying on country codes and language codes the lack of language code of 
a sovereign country implies difficulties and may become a security problem.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
==
My vote:
==
Dear JAC Members,

ISO 639 RAs-JAC ballot 2017-1 : Montenegrin

Please submit your ballot no later than 10 October 2017.

A – Inclusion

A1 – Alpha-3

_X_ I am in favor of including Montenegrin in the alpha-3 language code 
of ISO 639 Parts 2 and 3.

___ I am opposed to including Montenegrin in the alpha-3 language code.

B – Identifier(s)

_X_ I am in favor of the identifiers cnr (provided that the item will be 
encoded).

___ I am opposed to this identifier. [If you have answered “opposed” to 
question A2, you don’t need to express opposition to the alpha-2 
identifier explicitly.]

C – Names

_X_ I am in favor of the language names Montenegrin (for English), 
monténégrin (for French), црногорски jeзик / crnogorski jezik (as 
indigenous name).

___ I am opposed to these names. [Please comment!]

==
ISO3166 STANDARD AS A DATABASE

Since the ISO3166 standard as database (we migrated our Word documents 
at the end of 2013) we check consistency across all elements, and we do 
it with computer tools, not with eyes. Besides codes, any name within 
the ISO3166 standard (countries, territories, subdivisions) has language 
attributes: language code, and Romanization code, if applies. The 
language attributes are necessary for the very precise reason - a word 
is meaningful if we know the language in which it is written.

Example of Romanization and native Latin script:
Serbian is in Cyrillic:
"RS","SRB","sr","srp","ROMZ","Serbian Cyrillic (1977)"
Montenegrin is in Latin:
"ME","MNE","","001","LATN",""
Moldova uses Romanian, in Latin:
"MD","MDA","ro","ron","LATN",""

The principal tables in the ISO 3166 database are:
==> subdivision-categories.csv <==
alpha_2_code,alpha_3_code,numeric_code,category_id,language_alpha_2,language_alpha_3,category_name,category_name_plural
==> subdivision-names.csv <==
alpha_2_code,alpha_3_code,numeric_code,subdivision_category_id,subdivision_code,language_alpha_2,language_alpha_3,subdivision_name,romanization_system
==> subdivisions.csv <==
alpha_2_code,alpha_3_code,numeric_code,subdivision_category_id,subdivision_code,subdivision_footnote,subdivision_parent
==> territories.csv <==
alpha_2_code,alpha_3_code,numeric_code,territory_id,language_alpha_2,language_alpha_3,territory_name

For each language in Latin script, or its Romanization if applies, the 
ISO3166 database have a set of “allowed characters” (U+abcd, visual, 
UTF-8, Unicode universal name). Such set of characters is composed of 
[a-z, A-Z] plus diacritics.
Example of “allowed characters” in Romanian:
U+021A  Ț       c8 9a   LATIN CAPITAL LETTER T WITH COMMA BELOW
U+021B  ț       c8 9b   LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH COMMA BELOW

The check for consistency of the ISO3166 database shall be as automatic 
as possible, based on country-codes and then on relevant language-codes.
For each (alpha_2_code,alpha_3_code) verify if all names in 
(language_alpha_2,language_alpha_3) satisfy the corresponding characters 
set.
That procedure fails if we do not have any of language codes (alpha_2 or 
alpha_3), i.e. if both are empty.
Example of how bad it is: the OBP website for Montenegro “hides the 
problem” https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:code:3166:ME
cf. line Administrative language(s) with ‘001’ but no language code in 
any of Montenegro’s subdivision. Note that any customer subscribing to 
the database content (SQL) for his needs, and trying to use automatic 
tools, can see there is something broken. Amongst customers are private 
and public sector, various national administrations, specialized 
agencies, including security ones.
Amongst observers of anomalies are bad boys.
There is no good choice to fix it outside of fundamentals: setting 
language code.
==

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

December 2023
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
April 2018
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
December 2013
September 2013
July 2013
March 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
June 2012
August 2011
July 2011
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
June 2008
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 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
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager