Print

Print


I guess Peter wrote this message, although forwarded from Debbie (is there
a problem with your account on the list?)

Thank you for writing this message-- very well stated and I hope that will
put an end to the discussion in terms of what the JAC has to see.

Rebecca


On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
> 
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: 18 June 2007 18:17
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the JAC is concerned, the intentional semantic of "mis" is what it
> has always been. As for the extension, when 639-2 was the only alpha-3 code,
> there was only one context to evaluate the extension that would be derived
> by that intention; 639-2 did not document the extension, though at least one
> application of 639-2 - MARC - did. With the introduction of 639-3 and the
> pending introduction of 639-5 as additions to the alpha-3 space, it becomes
> clear that the extension must be determined within a context: the cases
> where you'd want to use "mis" differ if you're using 639-3 rather than
> 639-2. But for an application of a given part of 639, the change of
> reference name has had no effect on the extension for that context: the
> languages encompassed by "mis" in a 639-2 application, for instance, are the
> same as they were before.
> 
>  
> 
> When it comes to BCP 47, the change of reference name for "mis" is basically
> irrelevant because there is a much bigger issue: in RFC4646bis, BCP 47 will
> change from being an application of 639-1 and -2 to being an application of
> 639-1, -2 and -3. That change of context is what creates the issue wrt
> interoperability of "mis" in applications of BCP 47: Under RFC 4646,
> Burushaski content would be tagged "mis"; under RFC 4646bis, one would
> expect new Burushaski content to be tagged "bsk". There's no basis for
> matching: that's an interop problem. And note that it has nothing to do with
> stability of "mis" supposedly introduced with the name change: with or
> without that change, Burushaski content would be tagged differently before
> and after. 
> 
>  
> 
> And note that this issue exists whether one considers "old mis" to have the
> semantic that Keld is stuck on, 'all languages', or the semantic that the
> JAC has always intended: either way, it is the addition of 639-3 to BCP 47
> that creates an issue for uses of "mis" under BCP 47, not the name change. 
> 
>  
> 
> And even without the addition of 639-3, "mis" would have interop issues:
> assuming the semantic the JAC has always assumed, the extension in the
> context of 639-2 could narrow - inherently by the nature of the semantic -
> any time a new entry was added; but assuming the 'all languages' semantic,
> one could end up with comparable content tagged in non-comparable ways,
> "mis" and something else.
> 
>  
> 
> Therefore, I suggest that beating up ISO as not being in tune with the needs
> of the IT community is both fruitless and baseless, and is ignoring the fact
> that IETF has problems all of its own making. If IETF really wanted to avoid
> any stability or interop problems related to "mis", it should never have
> permitted its use in language tags, starting back in RFC 1766, because "mis"
> has always had stability / interop issues. But that horse is long out of the
> barn: "mis" *can* be used in language tags under RFCs from 1766 to 4646. The
> LTRU WG within IETF needs to decide what to do about that in RFC 4646bis.
> That's a job for IETF; we don't need to continue bothering JAC members with
> IETF issues.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Peter
> 
>  
> 
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:23 AM
> To: Peter Constable
> Cc: Kent Karlsson; Milicent K Wewerka; John Cowan; [log in to unmask];
> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
> LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"
> 
>  
> 
> Unfortunately, ISO codes have somewhat of an impedance mismatch with the
> needs of the IT community; in particular, stability. Thus BCP 47 has to
> stabilize those codes; one of the main reasons for the existence of RFC
> 4646. What that means is that if ISO tries to narrow the meaning of *any*
> code, whether it is a "clarification" or not, we have really only two
> choices: 
> 
> 1. Keep the broader semantic, which encompasses the new ISO narrow one, or
> 2. Deprecate the code (in one way or another).
> 
> Unlike many other codes, "mis" is one that we can do without, so #2 was a
> reasonable choice. 
> 
> What I was trying to come up with language that we could agree on even
> though we have very different views on the utility and meaning of 'mis'. It
> sounds like we are ok on the suggested language on the other thread, so I'm
> hoping that we can put "mis" to bed.
> 
> Mark
> 
> On 6/16/07, Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:
> 
> From: Kent Karlsson [mailto:  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]]
> 
> > With the "old mis" one could correctly apply 'mis' as a language
> > code for any language
> 
> That has *never* been the intent of ISO 639. It is an external
> interpretation, admittedly possible because ISO 639 was not fully explicit
> up to now. But from the perspective of the JAC, the "new mis" is exactly the
> same "mis" as the "old mis". 
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark 
> 
>