The issue has existed since prior to
Peter's analyses of collections when working on 639-3. For instance, there
are code elements for Upper Sorbian [hsb] and Lower Sorbian [dsb] (since
2003-09-01), even while Sorbian Languages [wen] also existed. It would
appear that Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian are the only recognized constituent
individual languages for Sorbian Languages, so "other" would
not apply, but in any case, there is no reference (implicit or explicit)
to instruct an inquirer to look up the individual Sorbian languages.
I have been working on mapping all individual
languages in 639-3 that are not also in Part 2 onto the collection code
elements of Part 2 (unless already mapped to a macrolanguage in Part 2).
(That is how I knew of the Sorbian languages case.) This is essentially
an update of work that Peter and Gary Simons did a few years ago in preparing
the first code tables drafts for 639-3. I can expand my mapping exercise
to include individual languages of 639-2, mapping to the most appropriate
collective code element for each. I have a number of motivations for doing
this, but it basically fits in with Peter's "third option."
Whether an amendment is required is
perhaps a part of the larger set of questions regarding informative aspects
of each standard when we get to really dealing with the whole set as a
database.
One option is that we *don't* provide such information
and assume that an application will supply it on its own as needed.
Another option is that ISO 639-5 include informative mapping tables listing
for each collection all of the entries it encompasses.
A third option is that informative mapping information can be provided
in the opposite direction: each entry in 639-1/-2/-3/-5 would include an
informative property listing one or more IDs for collections that include
that given item.
I think the second or third could potentially be done as a maintenance
exercise by the RAs or the JAC, though I also wouldn't assert there wouldn't
be grounds for someone to say these required an amendment. IMO, the text
in either 3.3 or 4.1.1 of 639-2 does not include anything that would prevent
us from making name changes of this nature. On the other hand, adding informative
mapping data would represent a significant technical change in the content
of any of the standards that might warrant the amendment process.
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:10 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: decision required: "other" collections
>
> Peter:
>
> There is a problem with understanding the scope of the language if
we
> remove "(Other)" and name all these with "Languages".
The distinction
> of
> course is that when we use (Other) it means that some of the languages
> within the group have their own identifiers, while others go in this
> bucket. It alerts the user to make sure that the language in question
> is
> not separately defined by its own identifier. So if we don't make
that
> distinction it will be hard for the user to know whether to look
> further.
> Perhaps this is an issue of documentation, when you suggest that there
> would be application decisions made for a subset. Currently we don't
> really have a mechanism to make these sorts of statements. Do you
have
> a
> suggestion so that we don't totally lose this information? How could
we
> document in the ISO 639-2 code lists?
>
> I'm not really concerned about MARC, because we have always said we
> don't
> have to use the same language names, only that the codes themselves
> represent the same entities. But some in the bibliographic world (and
> beyond) use the documentation on the ISO 639-2 site alone and somehow
> they
> will need to understand the scope of the language.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Peter Constable wrote:
>
> > Ping?
> >
> > It's been over a week; I'd like to see us move toward closure
on this
> > issue, please.
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On
> Behalf Of Peter Constable
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:45 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: decision required: "other" collections
> >
> > I want to revive this discussion so that hopefully we can bring
> > closure on it. I introduced two issues at the same time last
April,
> > "other" collections, and "mis". The latter
got people's attention,
> and
> > the former never got resolved. (The mis issue was resolved, so
the
> > passing mention of it below can be ignored.)
> >
> > Millicent replied that removing "Other" may be a problem
for those
> > using ISO 639-2 but not ISO 639-3. I responded to that suggesting
> that
> > this can be considered an application decision. Havard further
> > responded mentione 639-5 in the context of the entire 639 family
> > suggesting that 639-2 may be one of many possible subsets in
which
> the
> > meaning of "other" would differ - the implication being
that each
> > subset needs to define the intension or extension of collections
> > considered to be "other" collections in relation to
the given subset.
> > (Havard's message, which includes what Millicent and I wrote,
is
> > attached.)
> >
> > I note that the code table in ISO 639-5 FDIS does not include
> > "(Other)" in any entries, including the entries for
all of the
> "other"
> > collections currently in 639-2.
> >
> > My proposal to remove "other" as described below stands.
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On
> Behalf Of Peter Constable
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:28 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: decisions required: "other" collections, mis
> >
> > One of the issues I had identified was that the exclusive "other"
> > collections no longer make sense in a general application of
ISO 639
> > since now every known language has its own identifier. It was
not an
> > issue that absolutely needed to be addressed before part 3 was
> > published, but part 3 is now published, and users of the standards
> are
> > encountering this issue. Specifically, the group that works on
IETF
> > language tags is currently revising that spec to incorporate
part 3
> > and would like to see all the collections handled consistently
in a
> > way that allows their application to treat them all as inclusive.
> >
> > So, I propose that "other" be removed from all collection
names
> > (except perhaps mis - I'll discuss that in another thread). I
> > understand that some applications, such as MARC, would still
want to
> > treat some collections as exclusive. I don't see this change
as
> > contradicting that: we simply need to clarify that, in a particular
> > application that does not use all of the identifiers in the combined
> > parts of ISO 639, particular collections may be used in an exclusive
> > manner, at the discretion of the particular application.
> >
> > Proposed change: make all collections to be of one type with
one
> > pattern for naming.
> >
> > Action if accepted:
> >
> > * ISO 639-2 tables and the draft table for ISO 639-5: all names
of
> the
> > form "Foo (Other)" changed to "Foo languages".
A note added in
> > appropriate places explaining that applications may use collections
> in
> > an exclusive manner according to the needs of the particular
> > application. (Corresponding changes should get made in a revision
to
> > the text of ISO 639-2.)
> >
> > * ISO 639-3: A note added in description of collection scope
> > explaining that applications may use collections in an exclusive
> > manner according to the needs of the particular application.
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >