 |
 |
Thanks for doing this. In this particular case, I think the more appropriate date for "jw" is 1989 since this particular correction is tied to the publication of ISO 639-1:1988, just like "ji", "in" and "iw". That implies separating these two, but I think that's the right thing to do to capture the history. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Rebecca S. Guenther > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:55 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: lang code question: jw > > See what you think of what I just put up. It has a column for notes. I > contemplated whether to combine the deprecated jw and the deprecated jaw > in one line. jaw was an alternative code in the initial ISO 639-2, but > only because it was based on the erroneous jw code. So in order to put > different notes I made 2 lines, but they could be combined if people think > that is better. > > http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html > > Rebecca > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, [utf-8] Håvard Hjulstad wrote: > > > I agree that the best option is to add a "note" column. But a column for just very > few cases is also problematic. And we don't want to start "playing" too much with a > note column. > > > > I think that Peter's argument is a very good basis for a decision. What do people > think about this? > > > > Best regards, > > Håvard > > > > ------------------------- > > Håvard Hjulstad mailto:[log in to unmask] > > http://www.hjulstad.com/havard/ > > ------------------------- > > all outgoing mail is scanned using Norton AntiVirus > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Peter Constable > > Sent: 18. januar 2005 16:45 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: lang code question: jw > > > > > > > > I agree that it doesn’t logically belong in the English-name column. I was simply > following the example of other cases, such as > > > > > > > > > > -ji > > > > yid > > > > Yiddish [withdrawn] > > > > yiddish > > > > 1989 > > > > Dep > > > > > > > > The problem is that this is a note, but there’s no note column. Your suggestion > moves the note into the Category of Change column, which is problematic in that it > should only contain values Add, Dep, CC, NC or NA. A better solution might be the > following: > > > > > > > > > > 639-1 > > > > 639-2 > > > > English Name of Language > > > > French Name of Language > > > > Date added > > or changed > > > > Category of Change > > > > Note > > > > > > -ji > > > > yid > > > > Yiddish > > > > yiddish > > > > 1989 > > > > Dep > > > > withdrawn > > > > > > -jw > > > > jav > > > > Javanese > > > > javanais > > > > 1989 > > > > Dep > > > > “jw†published in error; withdrawn > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Håvard Hjulstad > > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:20 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: lang code question: jw > > > > > > > > I agree that something like this should be done. Logically, the note "[jw published > in error; withdrawn]" doesn't belong in the English name column. May be: > > > > > > > > > > -jw > > > > jav > > > > Javanese > > > > javanais > > > > 1989 > > > > "jw" published in error; withdrawn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Håvard > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Håvard Hjulstad > > > > Standard Norge / Standards Norway > > > > mailto:[log in to unmask] > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Constable [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: 14. januar 2005 23:12 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: FW: lang code question: jw > > > > There is some confusion out in the world regarding the alpha-2 symbol "jw" in > relation to Javanese. See the message below as an example. > > > > > > > > The history is that, in ISO 639:1988, there was an error in Table 1 (Alphabetical list > of two-letter language symbols): it showed "jw" for Javanese rather than "jv". Tables > 2 and 3 as well as the Annex correctly showed "jv". The error was documented in ISO > 639-1:2002. > > > > > > > > Nothing is mentioned at http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html > about "jw" since it was never considered assigned, hence never changed. But one > can't easily find *any* documentation regarding "jw" on the ISO 639 sites (as far as I > know, there isn't any). Thus, there isn't any way for people to get clarification about > "jw". > > > > > > > > I'd like to suggest that we add the following entry at the end of the list of > additions/changes to ISO 639 so that "jw" is documented: > > > > > > > > > > -jw > > > > jav > > > > Javanese [jw published in error; withdrawn] > > > > javanais > > > > 1989 > > > > Dep > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Davis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 1:47 PM > > To: Peter Constable > > Cc: Doug Ewell; John Cowan; Addison Phillips > > Subject: lang code question: jw > > > > > > > > We have code in ICU that maps obsolete codes, and it maps jw to jv. I was > > > > checking lstreg, http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langcodes.html#ij, > > > > and http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html and I couldn't > > > > find jw. But I see it in google > > > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22iso+639%22+jw, such as in SIL: > > > > > > > > http://www.ethnologue.com/show_iso639.asp?code=jw > > > > > > > > If it was indeed a language code, it sounds like it is mistakenly missing > > > > from http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html and thus from > > > > lstreg. > > > > > > > > ‎Mark > > > > > > > >