Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: registry should copy non-English fields from ISOdocuments

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:43:33 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> John Cowan

> > 3. A code (e.g. alpha3 in 639-3) stands as synonymous with the
reference
> > name and as entry point into the "conceptual" entry - the mantra is
> > "I don't care what you call it as long as we are referring to the
> > same thing"
> 
> The code points to the name, but the name does not always
unambiguously
> point to the language...

I think Lee's point is that the name used is intended to document the
conceptual entity in a way that ideally is unambiguous. I don't think
you two are actually disagreeing about anything; you're just struggling
over common words to describe a common understanding.

> > ensuring -4 has necessary and sufficient coverage.
> 
> >From what I understand (I have not seen a draft), -4 will be
conceptual
> and introductory (-0, in other words, if ISO rules permitted a -0
part)
> and will not provide coverage of anything.  Has this changed?

If by "coverage" you mean "specify identifiers for some languages", your
assumption is correct: part 4 will not do this (and has not changed in
that regard).

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:03:27 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:43 AM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: registry should copy non-English fields fromISOdocuments
...
> over common words to describe a common understanding.
...

Trying to sum up this thread:

    1) there is a reference name from the ISO documents.  In some cases
        this is the English name of the language, in others it's a transcription.
        This is currently part of an entry in the registry, and no one is suggesting
        that it be removed.

    2) in some cases the ISO documents also include a French name for
        a language.  This tracker item is on the question of whether this information,
        when available, should also be included in the registry.  It looks like there
        is a slight preference among active participants in the WG to include this
        information.  (Those who want it appear to want it more than those who
        oppose it don't want it.)

    3) In those cases where a French name for a language is available from the
        ISO documents, the remaining question is whether it should be included
        in the same field as the reference name, using some kind of delimiter, or
        given a field of its own.  Based on the technical arguments so far, I believe
        the preference would be to use a separate field to hold the French name,
        when available, for a language.

Note that this resolution would NOT entail translating entries for which French
translations are not already present in the ISO documents, nor would it require
a registrant to obtain a French name for a language, nor should it be in any way
understood as constraining the names displayed by implementations or used by
users.

Would this be an acceptable statement of rough consensus?

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:20:33 +0100

Hi

Hi

>     3) In those cases where a French name for a language is available from
> the ISO documents, the remaining question is whether it should be
> included in the same field as the reference name, using some kind of
> delimiter, or given a field of its own.  Based on the technical arguments
so> far, I believe the preference would be to use a separate field to hold
the French name, when available, for a language.

This is how it is currently held within the -6.

> 
> Note that this resolution would NOT entail translating entries for which
> French translations are not already present in the ISO documents, nor
>would it require a registrant to obtain a French name for a language, nor
>should it be in any way understood as constraining the names displayed by 
>implementations or used by users.
> 

For me... Yes

Kind regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: 11 April 2005 23:03
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #882] registry should copy non-English
> fieldsfrom ISO documents
> 
> Hi -
>

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:10:23 -0700

I agree with Peter. I still see no need for the addition of a French
language field. And worry that that might be taken as a precedent for adding
more and more language names. That kind of information belongs in a locale
repository, not in the language tag registry.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 15:03
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #882] registry should copy non-English
fieldsfrom ISO documents

>     3) In those cases where a French name for a language is available from
the
> Note that this resolution would NOT entail translating entries for which
French

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:45:41 +0200

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Those who want it appear to want it more than those who
> oppose it don't want it.

<g>

> Would this be an acceptable statement of rough consensus?

If Jefsey promises that he won't add "* 2" to his calculations.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 03:00:22 +0200

At 00:20 12/04/2005, Debbie Garside wrote:
> > so far, I believe the preference would be to use a separate field to hold

OK.

> > Would this be an acceptable statement of rough consensus?

I am sorry, I can only repeat this a definitive blocking opposition for me. 
For the reasons I gave several times. However once the principle of dual 
language (at least) naming necessity is established, practical arrangements 
can be quite flexible.

1. if an Englist or French (or other languages to be added) name for a 
language is missing, it will be accepted as non fully documented until a 
name is provided (a IANA procedure and Reviewer will have to be designated).
2. the same IANA registration could only be entered in English or French. 
It will be up to the French/English Reviewer to make sure the name in the 
missing language(s) is provided.

jfc

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:01:56 -0400

> name is provided (a IANA procedure and Reviewer will have to be 

For lots of languages there is no Academie-standardized French name.
(English doesn't have a corresponding concept, so there is no problem.)

-- 
"But I am the real Strider, fortunately,"       John Cowan
he said, looking down at them with his face     [email-masked]
softened by a sudden smile.  "I am Aragorn son  http://www.ccil.org/~cowaan
of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can      http://www.reutershealth.com
save you, I will."  --LotR Book I Chapter 10

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:14:31 -0700

Hi -

Still trying to see if we can reach closure on this...

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>; "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:00 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #882] registry should copy non-English fieldsfrom ISO documents
...
...

Currently, Jefsey, John Cowan, and Ned Freed have written in support
of including the French names.  Addison Phillips and Randy Presuhn have
written in opposition to it.  Numerous others have posted messages in this
thread, but their comments have been on the technical details, and have not
included clear statements of support for or opposition to the proposal.  If
you would like to be in my tally of those in support or in opposition, please
make an appropriate posting to the WG mailing list in this thread.

Of those who support copying available French names (and transcriptions)
for the names of languages, would you be willing to support Jefsey's
provisos?

Of those who have been neutral on the question, would Jeffsey's provisos
make it unpalatable?

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:20:51 -0400

> for the names of languages, would you be willing to support Jefsey's

No, indeed.  Most 639-3 names don't have French versions, and because
standard written French is a vocabulary-controlled language (unlike
standard written English) there is no reasonable prospect of getting
such standard names.

-- 
Unless it was by accident that I had            John Cowan
offended someone, I never apologized.           [email-masked]
        --Quentin Crisp                         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:33:24 -0700

Hi -

I missed one person in my tally:

Pro:
Jefsey Morfin, John Cowan, and Ned Freed

Contra:
Addison Phillips, Randy Presuhn, and Mark Davis

If  you would like to be in my tally of those in support or in opposition, please
make an appropriate posting to the WG mailing list in this thread.

Of those who support copying available French names (and transcriptions)
for the names of languages, would you be willing to support Jefsey's
provisos?  My "pro" tally is Jefsey Morfin, "contra": John Cowan.

Of those who have been neutral on the question, would Jeffsey's provisos
make it unpalatable to you?

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:41:25 +0200

>standard written English) there is no reasonable prospect of getting

Can you please fully document or remove these two statements.
jfc

PS.
Randy,
I note you use my comment to Debbie's as a basis for your gallop but do not 
quote her. I agree with Peter that ISO 639-3 maintainers' position should 
prevail (after througouht considerations of the situation and of ISO 
639-1-2-3-4-6 and the serious crossverification of the ISO 639-3 English 
list the ISO 639-3 French list work is structurally intended for). I am not 
sure our Charter includes an opposition to ISO 639 practices.

Peter,
my position has not changed since August. Until now I believe it has helped 
you. I am surprised you consider the dual language ISO QA of low interest. 
BTW I would have no problem in adopting autonyms as sole reference names - 
but I feel a equivalent amount of work would be necessary.

---

From: Robin Cover <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:14:43 -0400 (EDT)

I do not support a proposal to copy French names (and transcriptions),
as this creates multiple new difficulties (potentially) and provides
no useful solution to any technical requirement.

Robin Cover

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:05:10 -0700

Hi -

> To: "ltru Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #882] registry should copy non-Englishfields from ISO documents
...
> quote her.

I am not able to figure out what this statement is supposed to mean.
Do you have a problem or technical comment?

> I agree with Peter that ISO 639-3 maintainers' position should
...

The charter says: "It is also expected to provide mechanisms to support
the evolution of the underlying ISO standards, in particular ISO 639-3..."
This means that whatever solution this WG produces, one of the requirements
that should be satisfied is the ability to cope with revisions to ISO 639-3,
within reason.  A blind re-statement of the ISO list fixed at some point in time
will almost certainly not meet that requirement.  Consequently, I would expect
that what this WG produces will identify ISO 639-3 as one of its inputs,
but that there would also be additional information and policy beyond that
in order to satisfy our other charter requirements.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:46:31 -0700

Hi -

> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:24 AM

> On 06:05 12/04/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
> You list people having commented positively or negatively your question and
> do not list Debbie's position.
> jfc
>

As far as I can tell, Debbie took no position in the debate other than to say
that I had correctly summarized the state of agreement at that time.  Debbie,
please correct me if I mis-read your post.

Currently, here's where I think we are:

Those in opposition are Randy, Addison, Mark, Peter, and Robin.
Those in support are Jefsey, John, Ned, and Doug.

Both John and Doug, as well as several of those who are neutral,
are opposed to Jefsey's provisos.

Consequently, I think there is a consensus to reject Jefsey's provisos.

On the basic question, there is now a slim majority in favor of rejecting the
proposal, but I'm not willing to call it a consensus one way or the other
until others on the list speak up or someone changes their mind.

Randy

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:10:18 +0100

> please correct me if I mis-read your post.

You read my post correctly... my main comment was that IF the information is
included it should be in a separate field... but as to whether it should or
should not be included... effectively I am "on the fence".

Additionally I stated that there is currently a separate "French Name" field
in the proposed 639-6.  

Sorry... no help from me today!

Kind regards

Debbie

> Sent: 12 April 2005 20:47
> To: LTRU Working Group