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

Frank Ellermann nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sat Aug 30 22:44:31 CEST 2008

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.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list