Print

Print


In general I am not opposed to just including on the ISO639JAC a member of
the registration authority for 639-3. I am not too concerned about the
text of 639-2, since it is not the only thing that will be out of date and
we do need to have it revised (and should have a year ago). But I'm
wondering about the following issues:

1. The JAC is set up to have the chair rotate between the 2 registration
authorities-- will this need to be changed? I'm not sure that we could do
that without a reballot of the standard. (On the other hand, the chair
doesn't do that much these days, now that we have a secretary.)

2. It does change the balance of the committee in terms of voting. That
may not be a problem practically speaking. Would the 639-3 representative
be a voting member? But I think voting only applies to 639-1 and 639-2,
not 639-3 (that is, the process of change/add to 639-3 does not involve a 
committee that votes)?

I would suggest that we take this up on our next JAC teleconference.

Rebecca

On Wed, 3 May 2006, Peter Constable wrote:

> I'm preparing the FDIS text for 639-3 and need to act on the
> disposition of ballot comments accepted by WG1 at the Warsaw meeting
> last year. One of the comments had come from the ISO 639-2 RA (LOC):
> 
>  
> 
> The issue of JAC membership needs to be clarified.  Currently section
> A.3 contains the statement "ISO 639/RA/JAC shall include one
> representative of the ISO 639-3/RA."  It is not clear if this means
> that one of the existing three representatives from TC37 will serve
> that funtion or if this is a fourth representative from TC37. At the
> ISO 639-RA/JAC meeting in January 2004, it was agreed that the makeup
> of the JAC should maintain a balance of representation from TC 37 and
> TC 46 - 3 members each - and thus that a representative of SIL (the
> designated RA for 639-3) should fill one of the three TC 37 positions.
> 
>  
> 
> This WG decision for this comment was not accepted, with the following
> note:
> 
>  
> 
> The consensus of the working group is that the make-up of the JAC
> should include three representative each from TC 37 and from TC 46,
> and in addition should include one representative each from the
> registration authorities for part 1, part 2 and part 3; that is, a
> total membership of 9. The representatives from registration
> authorities are not perceived to be representing either TC 37 or TC
> 46.
> 
>  
> 
> As project editor, I basically have no choice but to make sure the
> FDIS for 639-3 reflects that decision. Of course, this is something
> that the JAC will probably want to process, which is why I mention it
> here.
> 
>  
> 
> One small issue is that we will end up with essentially two different
> statements regarding the make-up of the ISO 639-RA/JAC: one statement
> found in part 1 and in part 2, and another in part 3:
> 
>  
> 
> Here's the statement from ISO 639-1:2002, which is identical to that
> in ISO 639-2:1998:
> 
>  
> 
> A.3.1 Composition
> 
> ISO 639/RA-JAC is composed of
> 
> *        one representative of the International Information Centre for Terminology (Infoterm; representing ISO 639-1/RA),
> 
> *        one representative of the Library of Congress (LC; representing ISO 639-2/RA),
> 
> *        three representatives of ISO/TC 37 (nominated by ISO/TC 37), and
> 
> *        three representatives of ISO/TC 46 (nominated by ISO/TC 46).
> 
> Both ISO/TCs may nominate substitute representatives.
> 
>  
> 
> Here's the statement from ISO/DIS 639-3 (which will not change in this
> regard in the FDIS - statements having to do with responsibilities but
> not composition omitted):
> 
>  
> 
> A.3 Composition and responsibilities of the Joint Advisory Committee
> ISO 639/RA-JAC
> 
> The composition and responsibilities of ISO 639/RA-JAC are defined in ISO 639-1, A.3 and ISO 639-2, A.3. This part of ISO 639 adds the following to the definition:
> 
> * ISO 639/RA-JAC shall include one representative of the ISO 639-3/RA.
> 
> * ....
> 
>  
> 
> Thus, the statement in 639-3 is written as though it were effectively
> amending the statement in parts 1 and 2. Since nobody besides the JAC
> is affected by statements of its composition, it seems to me that the
> difference between the two statements is not a problem as long as we
> have an understanding among us regarding who the members are.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Peter Constable
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>