<html>
<body>
Dear Karen,<br>
You ask a _question_. David comments it. I comment your _need_ to David.
You then you show you caught the difference: your first paragraph
discusses your question. Then you comment my comment on your
needs.<br><br>
You agree with my evaluation that you need more elements and you lists
some of their metadata, showing that you would benefit from being ISO
11179 conformant, or that you aready are. (FYI. there is no other
objection to RFC 3066 bis to being ISO 11179 conformant, than Peter
saying it is not - has nothing to do with with RFC 3066 bis, but with the
IANA implementation). <br><br>
In an other part of my comment to David, I discuss the lack of multimode
support of ISO 639-6 and RFC 3066 bis which are written language
oriented and the lack of both of networked language support. I do not see
what is the relation with RFC 3066. Then you seem to challenge me on RFC
3066? We are so in agreement that we have a site about that:
<a href="http://rfc3066.org" eudora="autourl">http://rfc3066.org</a>.<br>
<br>
So, apart your misunderstanding of your own words, I feel we (again)
totally agree?<br>
All the best.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
At 19:53 20/10/2005, Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>Jefsey,</font>
<br><br>
<font size=2>I felt my question was quite clear. I asked how to
make a distinction between narrative audio language in two similar
flavors -- English English and Scottish English. That's all.
</font><br><br>
<font size=2>But for the record, language that appears on signs or within
the actual picture is not generally something we track as descriptive
works data. Our primary classification concern is the language (or
languages) used to tell the story of a narrative film. If there is a
non-English sign for a French, Hungarian, or Ethiopian restaurant that
appears in a film set in New York, documenting this really isn't of much
use to anyone. Where the signs are an important part of the narrative,
subtitles may be used to assist understanding -- even in the original
language. In extremely rare cases, these scenes may be reshot as part of
the localization process (this happened more in silent films than it does
today -- today this is really only likely in animated works). I still
don't see how this presents a problem for RFC 3066.</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>If we did need to track written language actually appearing
within the filmed frame, this is clearly another instance of text
language -- not a separate entity called "rendered language." I
would make "rendered," "closed caption," "audio
description" and other language distinctions through other fields --
Text Language Type or Language Usage Type. Those fields relate to
language USE -- not IDENTIFICATION, the goal of RFC 3066. I think this is
something you are unwilling to accept -- that perhaps there is a limit to
what should be contained in a tag designed strictly to identify the
language.</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>It might be more useful for you to identify other needs
separately and document solutions for the networking issues you perceive
rather than twist any question about the identification of language into
an opportunity to show us how insufficient RFC 3066 is from your
perspective and call for 11179 compliance.</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>The original audio language of the film is a Scottish
variant of English. Whether the film is dubbed by the original actors or
a new dubbing cast is irrelevant. It's a dubbed version.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>You still haven't proven to anyone that RFC 3066 is
insufficient for audiovisual identification needs -- especially me -- and
no one argues that there is a need to identify languages found in
audiovisual content. RFC 3066 is already embedded in many metadata
standards that serve the motion picture industry and motion picture
archives. When 639-6 is released, I will be reviewing that standard to
see if its added granularity, spoken/written distinctions, and taxonomic
structure better suit our needs. I look forward to seeing it, but it does
not exist today.</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Karen Broome<br>
Metadata Systems Designer</font> <br>
<font size=2>Sony Pictures Entertainment</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<font size=1><b>"JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<jefsey@jefsey.com></b></font> <br>
<font size=1>Sent by: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no</font>
<br><br>
<font size=1>10/20/2005 08:24 AM</font> <br>
<font size=1> </font><br>
<font size=1>
To: Speechways@aol.com,
petercon@microsoft.com, ietf-languages@iana.org</font> <br>
<font size=1>
cc: rd@afrac.org,
info@afrac.org</font> <br>
<font size=1>
Subject: Re: Scottish
English</font> <br><br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">At 08:40 20/10/2005,
Speechways@aol.com wrote:</font> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2>Peter, <br>
Thank you your quick-fire response, even so late in the day. Language is
important to most of us as a means of personal and social identity, as
well as a means of communication. I am not as sure as you are, that
our colleagues in the media will wish to dumb down distinctions which are
meaningful to the communities they are portraying and serving. One
of the strengths of English (and even more so of Chinese) is that a
dominant standardised language is backed up and enhanced by a rich
variety of related but distinctive locally spoken forms, whether these
are tagged as "languages" or not. I hope you will agree
that such important cultural realities should not be swept under the
carpet in the formulation of globalised standards.<br>
David Dalby<br>
Linguasphere Observatory/Linguasphere ICT</font> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"><br>
Dear David,<br>
I am not sure it addresses the need of Karen anyway. The discussion has
changed to tagging a language or another one. But I read her need as to
tag a picture version (probably more "rendering"?) where the
background (written spots, names of shops, etc.) is the same, but where
the speaking is partly different (I suppose the picture may include non
Scot characters who may have the same script [cinema meaning]). This is
the old debate: what is tagged. All the existing tools - including future
ISO 639-6 and RFC 3066 bis are more or less multilingual oriented but not
multimodal oriented. <br><br>
The problem is always the same: in a network environment who is to be the
master and who is to be the slave? The computer or the person? The
support of languages is already a big problem - Linguasphere, as an
ontology, probably addresses without controversy. But what about the
modal aspects, the new language form (after spoken, signed and written:
networked) and the new support (after tablets, papiri, stone, paper:
multi-media) not to speak of the architext issue (here we see that the
same architext [script of the picture] is rendered differently by the
same author - this is not dubbing, which is another parallel
problem).<br><br>
I think that only an ISO 11179 (not strictly) conformant approach can
help. But even in this case, they have not yet approached the
"networked" nature added to language and the need to add
"paradata" to the metadata/data model. <br>
jfc<br>
<br>
PS. I always asked myself how to tag the "Ecosse" post on
cars.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2>In a message dated 10/20/2005
6:35:11 AM GMT Daylight Time, petercon@microsoft.com writes:</font>
<br><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2 color="#000080">I suspect that
for the application Karen is dealing with, fine-grained distinctions
between varieties of Scottish English (or varieties of Scots) is probably
not that helpful: generally, the people cataloguing the content and the
people retrieving the content aren’t going to know how to tell them
apart. I suspect that all she cares about is the difference between
heavily-Scottish-accented English (if it isn’t Scots) and
mildly-Scottish-accented English.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2 color="#000080">Peter
Constable</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ietf-languages mailing list<br>
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#0000FF"><u><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages">
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a></u></font>
<font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ietf-languages mailing list<br>
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no<br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages" eudora="autourl">
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>