Print

Print


Ping?

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis

"mis" is in 639-2, and some users of 639-2 have indicated that they need to retain it. I think that the use of this identifier will have to be implementation-dependent, and as such discouraged.

I am in the US right now; back on 24 May. I shall pick up the ballot then (among 234 other things on my list ...).

Best regards,
Håvard

--------------------
Håvard Hjulstad
  Standard Norge / Standards Norway
  [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--------------------


________________________________
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christian Galinski
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
I think that it is a good solution to change the scope attribute of 'mis' from "collective" to "special purpose" - and not to include it in 639-2.
The use of "mis" as an easy way out (of a bit of investigation) should definitely be discouraged in the wording of the scope.

Regards
Christian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Christian Galinski, Director
Infoterm - International Information Centre for Terminology
Mariahilfer Strasse 123/3, A-1060 Vienna, Austria
T: +43-664-344 6181
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>  -  http://www.infoterm.info<http://linux.infoterm.org/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


________________________________
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Dienstag, 15. Mai 2007 18:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
I'm assuming you'll be sending this out shortly. Even though it is in 639-2, there is also a question as to whether its scope is "collection" or "special purpose". If it is "collection" then it would become part of 639-5 but not be in 639-3. On the other hand, if it is "special purpose", then it would get added to ISO 639-3.

So, I think you should modify the ballot to include the question of scope:

___ I agree to change the scope attribute of 'mis' from "collective" to "special purpose".
___ I do not agree.

If there's agreement on that point, it would automatically get included in 639-3, so a question on the ballot regarding inclusion in 639-3 isn't needed.


Peter

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 4:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis

I can prepare a ballot. Since it is actually an ISO 639-2 issue, I guess we do it according to the "old" procedure.

Håvard

--------------------
Håvard Hjulstad
  Standard Norge / Standards Norway
  [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--------------------


________________________________
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
We had several comments in support of "uncoded languages". I'd like to propose that name change, and suggest that if a ballot is needed that we get that done ASAP. People in IETF are looking for this to get clarified.


Thanks
Peter