Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050828154537.03a64d70@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:54:14 +0200
To: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>,
	"'Doug Ewell'" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: STD (was: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying
	Languages' toBCP)
In-Reply-To: <200508281122.j7SBMksg029043@smtp-los01.proxy.aol.com>
References: <00fa01c5ab6d$2e1a7d00$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<200508281122.j7SBMksg029043@smtp-los01.proxy.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Debbie,
you will see my comments in the mail of comments/support to Doug 
Ewell. All this is good and clear. Except your timing. When do you 
think we can have a test sample, to be able to develop? I suppose 
IANA would be interested too. Ditto, Doug: could you release your 
complete test ISO-639-3 included base?
jfc


At 13:22 28/08/2005, Debbie Garside wrote:
>See in line comments
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Doug Ewell
> > Sent: 28 August 2005 02:10
> > To: LTRU Working Group
> > Subject: [Ltru] Re: STD (was: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages'
> > toBCP)
> >
> > Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
> >
> > > JFTR, nothing new, I still prefer standards track:
> > >
> > > 3066bis   could obsolete 3066 (BCP 47) also as PS.
> > > 3066ter   oould integrate ISO 639-3 as DS (minor update)
> > > 3066tetra oould integrate ISO 639-6 as STD
> >
> > I still have significant concerns about the assumption that ISO 639-6
> > will be, or should be, automatically integrated into a language tagging
> > scheme.  The Linguasphere database upon which 639-6 is based is still
> > not freely available to the public for evaluation and examination, and
> > seems unlikely ever to be, unlike the Ethnologue database upon which ISO
> > 639-3 is based.
>
>I don't think anyone should make assumptions where technology is concerned!
>What I can say is that the database for the 639-6 standard will be made
>freely available online, in the same way as the Ethnologue, as soon as it is
>ready.  However, this is a WIP and there really is no point putting up half
>information that has not yet been verified.  I am currently putting together
>the verification methodology which will be implemented by various
>collaboration partners internationally.  I cannot at this moment say when
>the database will be ready but rest assured you will be notified.
>
>
> >
> > Moreover, with ISO 639-3 already claiming to provide coverage for "all
> > known human languages," numbering a bit over 7,600, and with
> > Linguasphere listing "over 20,000 languages and constituent dialects,"
> > one is left to wonder just what the 13,400 new identifiers will
> > contribute from the standpoint of identifying and requesting linguistic
> > content.  Will "en-US", "en-GB", "en-AU", and "en-IN" be given their own
> > four-letter codes in ISO 639-6, and what will be the rules for
> > correlating and equating these with the identifiers already in place?
>
>As it stands at the moment, 639-6 will provide each linguistic entity with
>one language reference name.  This reference name is intended for use as the
>unique data identifier (DI as per 11179). Unique Data Identifiers and
>alpha-4 Representations for each linguistic entity written, spoken and
>signed down to the level of dialect and component variety, where
>appropriate, will be provided.  Because 639-6 is a hierarchical system (the
>parent alpha-4 representation is provided), it lends itself very well to the
>"mapping" of the other codes of the 639 family; something that should prove
>invaluable for backward compatibility.  In other words, in the system as
>proposed, you could use either the alpha-4 representation or the unique DI
>to find the closest 639-1,-2,-3 or -5 tags should you so wish.
>
> >
> > Meanwhile, the claim that there are "over 20,000 languages" to be tagged
> > is being used as an argument against the current RFC 3066bis effort and
> > the plan to support 7,600 languages in RFC 3066ter.
>
>Hmmmm... at this point there could be very lengthy off topic discussions as
>to what is a language and I don't think that is a good idea.  I would not
>say that there are 20,000 languages but rather nearer to 7,600 as stated in
>639-3; just my humble opinion.  JFTR, I support the inclusion of 639-3 in
>RFC3066ter.
>
> >
> > I'm not saying anything against the Linguasphere effort per se, but with
> > the limited knowledge available to me, I don't think its eventual role
> > in language tagging should be considered a fait accompli.
>
>That is your prerogative but IMHO very much a sensible approach (see first
>line comment).
>
>ISO 639-6 is being created as an International Standard.  There is a long
>way to go (earliest completion 2007) until it reaches full IS and no doubt
>there will be twists and turns on the ISO journey :-)
>
>As previously mentioned by Peter, there will be a draft CD for comment
>available by the end of November.  At that time I will happily make it
>available to this expert group for comment.
>
>Have a nice day!
>
>Debbie Garside
>
> >
> > --
> > Doug Ewell
> > Fullerton, California
> > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru