Print

Print


Yes, I was interpreting Peter's question as a general process question on 
timing, continuing from my statement about adding a Part 2 approved code 
element to Part 3. I did not mean to imply that I would add Blissymbols 
"immediately" as in now. Sorry for any confusion on that.

-Joan



Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
2007-08-02 10:16 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






Of course. I was asking a general question about process, and I'm sure 
that's how Joan interpreted it.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:03 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss -
> Discussion
>
> Havard will need to send out a ballot to the JAC voting members to
> formally approve it.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Joan Spanne wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > HÃ¥vard  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,
> > > HÃ¥vard
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > > HÃ¥vard 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
> > >
> >
> >