Print

Print


I agree to be against alpha-2 (thus already applying a higher
threshhold), but I would feel more comfortable, if we would have adapted
our rules for alpha-3 already before taking a decision now.
 
rgds
Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Dr. Christian Galinski, Director 
Infoterm - International Information Centre for Terminology 
Mariahilfer Strasse 123/3, A-1060 Vienna, Austria 
T: +43-664-344 6181 
 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]  -
<http://linux.infoterm.org/> http://www.infoterm.info 
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Founded in 1971 by UNESCO to promote and organize 
co-operation in the field of terminology worldwide 
__________________________________________________ 
THIS E-MAIL HAS BEEN SCANNED FOR ALL KNOWN VIRUSES 

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Peter Constable
Sent: Sonntag, 26. März 2006 23:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ballots on Hyam, Gong



I find myself in a quandary* over the Hyam and Gong requests. 

 

The requesters claimed to have 50 docs for Hyam, but not Gong; it’s
evident that they are requesting these to facilitate software
localization. Applying the current rules strictly, I should probably
vote in favour of Hyam but against Gong. I feel both should have an
alpha-3 (but not alpha-2), but there are alpha-3 IDs for both in 639-3,
and it’s unclear to me if those that have the greatest concern for the
future of 639-2 would consider it appropriate to include these. At this
point, I feel my choices are one of the following:

 

1.	vote with strict application of the rules (Hyam, yes; Gong, no) 

2.	vote in favour of both to satisfy the expressed need knowing
that it might compromise future revised criteria for 639-2 

3.	wait to see how our TC46 members vote and simply vote the way
that they do 

4.	wait until we have new criteria set for 639-2, delaying a
decision on these even longer 

 

 

 

* “In a quandary” is an apparently-obsolete expression replaced by the
modern anomaly “conflicted”, which I cannot bring myself to use.

 

 

Peter

 

 

 


  _____  


From: ISO JAC Voting Member List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Håvard Hjulstad
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [JACVOTE] ISO 639 ballot 2006-4 - Hyam; Ham; Jaba

 

Dear JAC voting members,

 

ISO 639 ballot 2006-4: Hyam; Ham; Jaba

 

Please see original submission in the enclosed message. I am sorry that
the issue has been on by desk too long before submitting a ballot.

 

During the discussion none of the members presented arguments against
the inclusion of this item in the alpha-3 table of ISO 639-2. It is
already in ISO 639-3.

 

Please vote by 14 April 2006.

 

Submitted by:

 

(A) Inclusion:

(1)

___ I am in favour of including "Hyam; Ham; Jaba" in ISO 639-2.

___ I am opposed to including "Hyam; Ham; Jaba" in ISO 639-2.

 

[Inclusion in the alpha-2 code is not balloted.]

 

(B) Identifier:

[Since the item is already in ISO 639-3, the identifier "jab" should be
retained.]

 

(C) Names:

(2)

___ I am in favour of the English names "Hyam; Ham; Jaba".

___ I am opposed to the English names "Hyam; Ham; Jaba".

 

(3)

___ I am in favour of the French names "hyam; ham; jaba".

___ I am opposed to the French names "hyam; ham; jaba". 

 

(4)

___ I am in favour of the indigenous names "Hyam; Ham; Jaba".

___ I am opposed to the indigenous names "Hyam; Ham; Jaba". 

 

(D) Comments: