Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050620191934.0393a990@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:41:00 +0200
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>, <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: review of the day.
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE064B72B9@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE064B72B9@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Dear Peter,
not much time for a few remarks before the f2f meeting called by dot-root 
peoples after Addison's mail. We are not in much disagreement, but ...

At 16:29 20/06/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>A consensus does not require unanimity; it only requires an attempt at
>unanimity that results in at least a solid majority, which we have.

I am afraid you confuse IETF and a consortium like Unicode or with ISO. 6 
billions people to vote? IETF goes by rough consensus. We can have any 
solid majority any time. What the use if we are wrong? The code and market 
decide in here.

>The LTRU-WG charter is not a direct concern of ISO and is not likely to
>be discussed at the TC37 meeting in Warsaw.

Glad to learn. Who are the Chaires of the Internet WG associated to ISO 
639-1 and ISO 639-2, as listed by TC 37?
No similar relationship of ISO 639-3 to the business environment?

>An ISO enquiry draft is hardly vapourware.

We agree. ISO 639-3, -4, and -5 are equivalent ISO stage to me. Except that 
-3 and -5 should follow -4 guidelines.

>The work of this WG has had little or no direct impact on the
>development of ISO 639-3.

Do you mind removing Addison & Davis successive drafts from the reference 
list in ISO drafts?

>ISO 639-1 was developed initially by terminologists, not librarians. ISO
>639-2 was developed jointly by TC 37 and TC 46, the former consisting
>mainly of terminologists and lexicographers, though the initial code
>table was derived largely from the MARC language code list.

I simplified. ISO 639-1 is meant to stay an abstract of ISO 639-2 which is 
maintained by the Library of Congress.

>The project schedule for ISO 639-3 is not constrained by the project 
>schedule for ISO 639-4.

ISO 639-4 "implementation guidelines and general principle for languages 
coding" (something somewhat relevant to this WG?) is described by the ISO 
TC/37 Business Plan as follows:  "As the overall ISO 639 expands, the need 
to specify common basis has become urgent. The rules governing the overall 
projects need to be laid down in a separate document". Concerns us if to 
dedicate the Internet to ISO 639-3, i.e. to ... you.

>ISO 639-3 is a project of TC 37/SC 2/WG 1; I am the editor. For the
>draft code table, it has combined the inventories of ISO 639-1, ISO
>639-2, the SIL Ethnologue and the Linguist List.

You may remember this was a summary. Exact TC 37 wording is "This standard 
will be part of the work program of SC2 based extensively on the SIL 
Ethnologue".

Locales are a possible application for ISO 639-3 (or ISO 15924 -- it's
>not clear what Mr. Morphin's simple-enough-to-understand

Mr. Morfin simpler-to-spell :-) I cannot resist that one after Peter made 
the same (correct) remark about my poor spelling of a Lady's name.

>statement is saying at this point), but they certainly are not the only 
>application for which that standard has been developed, or even the 
>primary one.

Certainly. But this is the only new on in an IETF document, that the 
co-Author and project manager does not want to introduce.

>It is completely unclear why IP rights have been mentioned, but it is 
>certain there is no particular concern in relation to ISO 639-3 (or ISO
>15924).

The concerns are important and have nothing to do with ISO 639-3 or 15924 
but with the support by an IETF document of an external project with no 
clear IPR status which should be easy to clarify. And with the universal 
use by the Free community of a key reference file which could become 
proprietary or patented.

>*Debate* over "gsw"? I would hardly characterize the discussion as
>debate. There was no particular points of disagreement.

Debate has several senses. The one I refer to is "Deliberation; 
consideration: passed the motion with little debate. "

> > What is at stake is that everyone is most probably OK for a green
> > light to ISO 639-3. But with some provisions. One is that what
> > to ISO 639-4 in ISO 639-3 is removed.
>
>Since I am not the editor for 639-4, it is impossible that I pasted
>anything into both. None of the paragraphs in the working draft for
>639-4 were inserted directly or indirectly by me.

Jesuitism. Anyway, what is important is that what belongs to -4 in -3 be 
removed, so -3 can be accepted.

>The development of ISO 639-4 and of ISO standards in general is
>rather off topic for this list.

(a) I do not think so since we are to discuss the integration of ISO 639-3 
or not in a IANA registry
(b) that ISO 639-4 precisely discusses correlation between ISO-639 -1, -2, 
-3, -5, -6 with ISO 15924 and ISO 3166, of their maintenance, etc. even if 
we did not worked on the Charter, it seems that rings a bell.
(c) that the output of this WG is used as part of the ISO debate.
(d) that this WG takes positions which may conflict with ISO 639-4 (in 
particular over ISO 11179 extensibility/scalability, updates and UN M.49)

This is why I submit that the report on the Varsaw meeting is important to 
this WG. Because it gathers people having a long command of the ISO 
standard we discuss or authority over them, of the language tagging in IT 
and network environment. Because it represents the market and the 
authorities we are supposed to address. Because they standardise for the 
applications going to be the back end of what this WG is to standardise. 
Because the IESG has not established a JAC with them and that the only 
relation we may have with them is to wait for their report.

Because as you say "An ISO enquiry draft is hardly vapourware." and this WG 
Draft is still under discussion.

> > ISO/AFRAC priorities are...
>
>Since AFRAC is not an ISO member body, it is inappropriate IMO to refer
>to "ISO/AFRAC priorities", implying that there is some common agreement
>on priorities between these bodies.

Do you say that ISO priorities are not multilingual, multimodal, 
multimedia, multitechnology, multitude of users implications?

I quote the AFRAC voted position: "The ultimate target is to facilitate the 
exchange goods and services through the elimination of technical barriers 
to trade and to foster the human cultural development through a 
multilingual, multimodal, multimedia, multitechnology, multi-user 
environment internet". I quoted it before in this WG.

Anyway, dot-rooters are coming in .... they will probably tell they do not 
care about ISO and this WG because neither ISO nor WG-ltru want to address 
CRC needs. But that they can do with some ISO ....What I will have to agree ...
Have a good day, let me have a tough evening :-)
jfc










_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru