I will add it immediately. SIL's intention is that the the jointly held elements of Parts 2 and 3 should always be as closely in sync as possible. Since the tables we have on the 639-3 website actually do also include the collective codes of Part 2, even a new collective code gets added to my database for management tracking, though it is not included in the Part 3 download files. This would be similar for any change to Part 1, also.

The plan is to process annual batches of changes. This year there are two batches because of the backlog of requests during the final draft phase of the standard in 2006 (since we in SIL were under the impression that the FDIS code set was to be stable, as it had been included in the voting process). We certainly hope the rate of change will settle down after this year. I have over 140 new change requests to be considered, and there are more coming in daily.

-Joan



Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

2007-08-01 08:02 PM
Please respond to
ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

To
[log in to unmask]
cc
Subject
Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion





Joan’s approach makes sense to me.
 
Joan, can you clarify: if something is approved for 639-2 and is an appropriate addition for 639-3 (i.e. not a collection), will you update the 639-3 records immediately, or add it into the next batch of changes to be published as part of 639-3 semi-annually (or whatever the frequency is)?
 
Thanks
Peter
 
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joan Spanne
Sent:
Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:53 AM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject:
Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion

 

I have no problem with the JAC just balloting--and approving--it for 639-2, in which case it is automatically added to 639-3. I had said as much during that teleconference, that if an identifier is going to be considered for 639-2, it should just go through the existing 639-2 process of JAC discussion and balloting, and if approved, it enters both parts. If not approved, then it could be considered for 639-3, if warranted.


The exceptions to this would be

1) it is a collective code element, and does not get included in Part 3

2) it causes a conflict with something in Part 3, in which case I alert the JAC to that problem during the discussion phase, and specific issues are addressed


I see no problem with Blissymbols...

Vote: yes


-Joan

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

2007-07-31 03:14 PM


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


To
[log in to unmask]
cc
Subject
Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion

 







Since this was in the pipeline for ISO 639-2, shouldn't it have been
considered in the same for 639-3?

To clarify the process... If we get a request for 639-2, first we see if
it's in 639-3 and propose it for 639-2 if it meets the criteria. If it is
requested for 639-2 and it isn't in 639-3, it then gets requested for
both, (assuming it meets the criteria)? It probably should have been
requested for 639-3 during the last revision period since it was submitted
in 2006, but I guess it looks like it fell between the cracks.

Rebecca

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Joan Spanne wrote:

> The process to submit a request for 639-3 starts with a form:
>
> (change request type 5)
> and continues with another form (since this is for a new language, not a
> change to an existing code element)
>
>
> The next round of requests will be up for formal consideration Sept - Dec.
> and the outcomes will be announced in January 2008. So this will not
> enable you to make your announcement, Michael. My apologies.
>
> -Joan
>
>
>
> Håvard  Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> 2007-07-31 11:17 AM
> Please respond to
> ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> To
> [log in to unmask]
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am not at home and close to my papers, but from what I can see from
> email exchanges you are indeed right that the item was discussed (with no
> negative submissions, as far as I can see), and that no ballot has been
> circulated.
> However, we cannot process this item for ISO 639-2 without consideration
> for ISO 639-3. It should indeed be processed for ISO 639-3 now.
> Subsequently we should consider whether encoding in ISO 639-2 would also
> be needed.
> What is the status in 639-3? I don't see that from where I am sitting
> right now.
> Best regards,
> Håvard
>
> --------------------
> Håvard Hjulstad
>   Standard Norge / Standards Norway
>   [log in to unmask]
> --------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss -
> Discussion
>
> At 09:39 -0400 2007-07-31, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> >It looks like this never went out for a vote. Maybe Havard can tell us
> >its status.
>
> There was no objection raised in any previous discussion. There was some
> request for clarification which was provided.
>
> It would be lovely if I could inform the Bliss group here in Dundee that
> "zbl" is approved for Blissymbols.
> --
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>