"mis" update review request

[Peter Constable]

Some clarifications wrt mis:

- Collections are a notion that is relevant across all parts of ISO 639. It doesn't make sense to refer to collections in ISO 639-3 since (a) the notion is not specific to that part of ISO 639 and (b) that part of ISO 639 doesn't code collections.

- Wrt mis in particular, Mark suggested that the proposed comment would be a narrowing of the semantic. It's not obvious to me that he's wrong, but it's also not obvious to me that he is right.

The semantic legacy is MARC, where mis is documented (in MARC 21) as encompassing the following:

Ainu
Andamanese
Burushaski
Chukchi
Etruscan
Gilyak
Hattic
Hurrian
Iberian
Indus script
Kamchadal
Ket
Koryak
Nancowry
Nenets
Nganasan
Nicobarese
Palan
Yugh
Yukaghir

Keep in mind a couple of things: First, this list is defined by MARC, not ISO 639. Secondly, mis was defined in the context of entries included in ISO 639-2; ISO 639-5 will likely introduce new collections, and clearly that has potential impact on how mis might be used.

The intention clearly was for mis to be used when no individual-language or collection entry was applicable. Equally clear is that that is a vague semantic that is subject to change as ISO 639 is maintained and that could also get interpreted differently in different application contexts.



Peter