ontology nits (was: acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM)

[Mark Davis]

At this point, I don't see the need for a compete subtree. But I think we
are better off not picking a name which would seem to be restricted to one
particular variant of 'akademic Belarusian', the 1959 variant, in case there
are further variants necessary. We just make trouble for users by doing so.
Option A. If we have just
be-akadem
and it later becomes necessary to distinguish the 1959 variant from the 2010
variant, we'd could end up with

be-akadem // for any variant
be-akadem-1959 // for the 1959 variant
be-akadem-2010 // for the 2010 variant

Option B. If we push the number into the name, then we'd have
be-akad1959 // for the 1959 variant

Come 2010, we'd have to add
be-akad2010 // for the 2010 variant

But then we'd be missing the umbrella term for both, which is what most
people would really like to use. (It'd be like having a term for "British
English" and one for "American English" and one for Australian (&c.), but no
umbrella term for "English" (of any variant). So we'd end up back yet again
adding what we should have added in the first place:

be-akadem

Mark


On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Frank Ellermann
<nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>wrote:

> Yury Tarasievich wrote:
>
> > Why want the subtags' names to be hierarchical
> > (to contain genealogy) at all?
>
> It depends on your goals.  For a Slovenian variant
> we have "subvariants".  You can talk about sl-rozaj
> including its subsets sl-rozaj-osojs, sl-rozaj-njiva,
> sl-rozal-lipaw, sl-rozaj-solba, and sl-rozaj-biske.
>
> FWIW you can even talk about sl-rozaj-1994,
> sl-rozaj-biske-1994, etc.  And if you are seriously
> angry try sl-rozaj-biske-1994-fonipa (but arguably
> fonipa and 1994 are mutually exclusive here).
>
> The main thing is that sl-rozaj is at the root of
> the "complete" subtree.  Actually fonipa should be
> no variant, but so far nobody bothered to create an
> extension for this generic concept.
>
> > As far as I understood, there's no such requirement
> > for the subtag
>
> Yes, it's not required, but it's obviously allowed.
>
> > One-level index seems to be quite enough ("for
> > everyone" :).
>
> We're in violent agreement here, but Mark's use case
> is "complete subtree", apparently.
>
>  Frank
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080830/1a786eff/attachment-0001.htm