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:

bej
Beja
Add Bedawiyet
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]