Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050830043117.03a946e0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:42:57 +0200
To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>,
	Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: FW: [Ltru] Re: STD (was: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying
	Languages' toBCP)
In-Reply-To: <43139B4F.1030102@icu-project.org>
References: <200508291950.j7TJocem006641@smtp-los04.proxy.aol.com>
	<43139B4F.1030102@icu-project.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

At 01:33 30/08/2005, Mark Davis wrote:
> > ISO 639-6 is based on the Linguasphere Register by Dr David Dalby published
> > 1999/2000; it is currently being revised in conjunction with the standard.
>
>At the very least, you should not say "standard", but instead say 
>"proposed standard". It is *not* an ISO standard, not even a CD.

Dear Mark,
you call your Draft RFC 3066bis for so long, you could allow Debbie 
to enjoy calling her ISO 639-6 work a standard once.

I may miss something, but you should be happy she supports and 
enhances your Draft with possibly missing names in ISO 639-3 to be? 
She even permitted Peter to document that (nobody known it!): in 
spite of having a WG consensus against the very idea, your Draft 
supported ISO 11179 (however no one but me ever talked of ISO 11179 
conformant table).

Now you are correct, it is not a CD but a very big book, very long to 
scann. Debbie could we at least have a file copy of the 1999/2000 
version? It would save me days... Thank you.
jfc





>Mark
>
>Debbie Garside wrote:
>>Doug Ewell wrote:
>>
>>>I'm a bit surprised that a work characterized as a work-in-progress and
>>>not yet ready for public review is nevertheless deemed ready to be
>>>considered as a draft international standard.
>>
>>ISO 639-6 is based on the Linguasphere Register by Dr David Dalby published
>>1999/2000; it is currently being revised in conjunction with the standard.
>>There are a number of copies still available if you would like to order one!
>>;-)
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell@adelphia.net]
>>>Sent: 28 August 2005 19:36
>>>To: LTRU Working Group
>>>Cc: Debbie Garside
>>>Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: STD (was: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying
>>>Languages' toBCP)
>>>
>>>Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>We're not talking about a
>>
>>>completely new invention, but a method of classifying languages, which
>>>is a human endeavor dating back many centuries if not millenia.
>>>
>>>But I'm certainly glad that my assumption that the information might not
>>>be made freely available was incorrect.  Clearly, there can't be
>>>anything proprietary or IP-restricted about the data available for
>>>language tags (but of course Linguasphere can always provide proprietary
>>>value-added data, such as the language hierarchy).
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>But in language tags, either one value needs to be canonical -- sorry,
>>>"preferred" -- over the others, or else the duplicative values should be
>>>not be added at all.  Otherwise there is a significant burden on those
>>>who would perform matching.
>>>
>>>I would suggest that for compatibility, subtags directly mappable to ISO
>>>639-1/2/3 should not be added.  This is similar to the situation with
>>>ISO 639-2 in RFC 3066, where values like "eng" were not made available
>>>for language tags because of the pre-existence of "en".
>>>
>>>Will Linguasphere provide the mapping between the new alpha-4 codes and
>>>ISO 639-1/2/3, or is that something a group like this would have to do?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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 agree that the broad question of "what is a language" is out of our
>>>scope. The more specific question "what is a taggable language
>>>distinction" is perhaps more germane.  I just think the two figures
>>>(7,600 and 20,000) could be seen as representing a fundamental
>>>disagreement.  I'd like to cite a specfic example of a distinction that
>>>is made in 639-6 but not 639-3, but I can't because the data's not yet
>>>available.
>>>
>>>I did not mean to imply that it was you (or Lee) who opposed either the
>>>current draft or the proposed use of ISO 639-3 in future drafts.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I will gladly wait until then before trying to make specific comments on
>>>639-6.  Until then, I stand by my prerogative (in the U.S. we might say
>>>that it's not a slam dunk).
>>>
>>>
>>>>Have a nice day!
>>>
>>>+1
>>>
>>>--
>>>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