 |
 |
I think it would be a good idea if we were to establish a system for the updating of codes within ISO 639 that would include a time period where the ISO 639 JAC publish its intentions for public comment prior to the change being further discussed/balloted/adopted. As I think Christian has alluded to many times, we need to be much more systematic about these things. Best regards Debbie > -----Original Message----- > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca S Guenther > Sent: 18 November 2008 16:25 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: I hope we didn't make a mistake > > Dear ISO 639 JAC: > > I have someone coming to meet with me tomorrow from the > Moldovan embassy. He mentioned that the issue has been in the > press (and Michael forwarded something from the Romanian > newspaper which I couldn't read-- it has also been in the > Moldovan newspaper). Of course the whole thing was taken out > of context and apparently the article in the Moldovan paper > said that because we made this change that the US government > supports combining Romanian and Moldovan-- and maybe even in > their dispute over whether they should be one country (that > was the implication-- I'm not sure exactly what was said). > This of course is silly, but shows how important these people > consider their languages having separate identities. > > I will report after my meeting with him, but I did go back > and look at some old messages (which I wish I had looked at > before we made this decision a few weeks ago) and found these: > > http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=ISOJAC&D=0&I=- > 3&X=2D31756EB75127516D&P=265 > http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=ISOJAC&D=0&I=- > 3&X=63517500CB774164C0&P=1117 > The whole conversation took place in July 2005; you can see > in the archives at: > http://listserv.loc.gov/listarch/isojac.html > I am sort of sorry we didn't consult more widely, but I guess > it is too late now. > > I will point out to him that retired code elements do not > mean that they are not in records. However, we have now > removed "mo/mol" from our documentation. > Are there any other options as to how to document this? > Of course, we have always taken currently unused codes out, > so this would be a change in our process and I am not sure > how it would work with our MARC language code list-- it lists > the deprecated codes in a separate section and not in the main part. > > Rebecca > > > >