Print

Print


At what point did the LCSH term "Greek language, Medieval and late" (scope 
note: Covers the period, ca. 600-1821) come into usage? Does it not 
provide a clue regarding differentiation?

The reason Medieval Greek is a problem is because it seems that straight 
splits (including retiring the current code element) are not allowed with 
Part 2 code elements. And yet circumstances in which a split may have been 
proper have come up in the past and the new codes were just added. For 
example, what is the relationship here?
nor     Norwegian
nno     Norwegian Nynorsk (added 2000-02-18)
nob     Norwegian Bokmål (2000-02-18)

In the MARC code list:
Norwegian [nor] 
UF      Bokmål 
Dano-Norwegian 
Riksmaal 
...
Norwegian (Bokmål) [nob] 
UF      Bokmål 
Dano-Norwegian 
Norwegian (Nynorsk) [nno] 
UF      Landsmaal 
Nynorsk 

In Part 3 this is managed via the macrolanguage mapping, but that came 
along after the problem, and it would seem there is still ambiguity in 
Part 2.

I am not in favor of using macrolanguages in historical contexts because 
of the lack of any reference to diachronic language situations as being 
candidates for macrolanguage - individual language associations in the 
standard. The implication within the standard is that there are 
present-day, real-world contexts in which a macrolanguage is considered a 
single language, not just code-world contexts where genuine splits are not 
allowed.

In Part 3, retired code elements are still in the code set, albeit not in 
the main set download file; they are not recommended for current usage, 
but neither are they illegal. They retain the meaning they had when they 
were retired.

-Joan




"Patton,Glenn" <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
2007-08-01 09:58 AM
Please respond to
ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: First round of changes for ISO 639-3 review period over REPLIES 
REQUESTED






I agree with Peter's concern about 'grc'.  For bibliographic records (and 
I looked at a bunch this morning), I believe we'd be faced with a 
situation in which it would often be difficult to determine (based on the 
data in the records) what the correct coding should be.  For example, I 
saw a number of microforms of manuscripts created in the 12th century.  It 
seems to me that one could not automatically assume that the correct 
coding would become "gkm" because the text of the manuscript might reflect 
the characteristics of the earlier form of Greek.  A cataloger might be 
able to make the determination at the point of cataloging but one could 
only guess if a conversion of existing records were undertaken.
 
--Glenn

From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
Of Peter Constable
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ISOJAC] First round of changes for ISO 639-3 review period 
over REPLIES REQUESTED

Broadening the denotation of an ID is not a breaking change, in the sense 
that existing records tagged with (e.g.) “eus” continue to be correctly 
and as-optimally tagged after the merger. 
 
It is narrowing of a denotation that would be a breaking change; e.g., 
splitting Ancient Greek in a way that narrows the time-depth varieties 
over which “grc” applies would mean that some unknown number of records 
tagged with “grc” would suddenly become incorrectly tagged when the change 
takes place.
 
 
Peter
 
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
Of Joan Spanne
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: First round of changes for ISO 639-3 review period over 
REPLIES REQUESTED
 

Peter and Milicent responded to my memo of 9 July, but no one else has 
commented. I think I answered their specific issues, but my answers also 
pointed out where discussion is still needed. 

Action is awaiting on: 

2006-080
bej
Beja

Add Bedawiyet 
2006-090
ile
Interlingue

Add Occidental

(these are both 639-2 code elements, where these changes came about 
through interaction with -3 code elements) 

and on these: 
2006-118        bsz        Souletin Basque        Merge        Merge into 
[eus] Basque 
2006-119        bqe        Navarro-Labourdin Basque        Merge Merge 
into [eus] Basque 
I did not ask for JAC input on this before, as both code elements being 
retired are only in 639-3, but on further consideration, I decided to 
bring it up, since [eus] is in 639-2, and this could be considered 
broadening the denotation of [eus] Basque, based on the interpretations 
taken for the three code elements when 639-3 was drafted. 

And the two tough ones: 

2006-084 
gkm 
Medieval Greek 
add code element

this affects [grc] Classical Greek, in particular. See Peter and 
Milicent's memos for discussion (split / macrolanguage / collection are 
the readily apparent possible answers). 

2006-129 
cat
Catalan 
Catalan 
Catalan (macrolanguage) 
2006-129 
cat
Catalan 
Individual language 
Macrolanguage 
2006-129 
cln


Catalan (individual language) 
2006-129 
vac


Valencian

I have not heard anything favorable toward Valencian as a separate code 
element from the JAC, and I also think Valencian does not warrant a code 
element on linguistic grounds, and the sociolinguistic landscape is too 
uneven to grant one on sociolinguistic grounds. Is that the JAC concensus? 
If so, how is the response to be made? (The decision to consider Valencian 
at all was based on the recommendation they were given last year when 
their request to 639-2 was denied.) 

For those of you away from the office but able to briefly reply, when will 
you be returning to work to take up these questions? 

-Joan 



Milicent K Wewerka <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> 
2007-07-23 12:32 PM 


Please respond to
ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>



To
[log in to unmask] 
cc

Subject
Re: First round of changes for ISO 639-3 review period over
 








I have two comments on the changes to ISO639-3 as proposed in your 
document.

Request 2006-084 for a new code element for Medieval Greek (gkm): Adopting 
this addition will make it necessary to revised the captions for 
identifiers grc and ell/gre.  Those identifiers are part of ISO 639-2.

Request 2006-127 for a new code element for Katso (kaf):  This may be the 
same language as Kaduo (ktp).


Milicent Wewerka, Library of Congress


>>> Joan Spanne <[log in to unmask]> 07/09/07 5:54 PM >>>
Hello All,

The first round of change requests for ISO 639-3 underwent review from 
April 1 - June 30. As expected, not many received any comments, though the 

Valencian request received 43 comments alone (5 other change requests 
received one comment each), about 1/4 opposed and 4/5 in favor (including 
a form letter sent in by 9 people).

I am attaching a document that is my report on the changes, with summaries 

and recommendations. Three code elements affected are in both Part 2 and 
Part 3. The changes to these are summarized first in the report. The rest 
of the report contains summaries of all other changes (those affecting 
only Part 3).

Obviously action on the three code elements in both parts will require 
agreement of the JAC. In addition, though, I would appreciate a review of 
the other proposed changes, as it is just possible that one or more of 
them might have some effect on Part 2 that I had not foreseen.

To see the actual change request documentation, use this pattern for the 
link:

http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/chg_detail.asp?id=2006-129 
where the parameter at the end is the change request number.

In order to minimize delay in posting the results of the requests (at 
least for those only pertaining to part 3), I would appreciate a response 
by July 18th, if possible. Debate on the Valencian - Catalan matter may 
take longer, of course. For more on that matter, please see my message 
dated 13 Apr 2007.

Thanks,

Joan Spanne
ISO 639-3/RA
SIL International
7500 W Camp Wisdom Rd
Dallas, TX 75236
[log in to unmask]