Subject: RE: [Ltru] additional changes...

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:21:43 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of r&d
> afrac

> If I am correct (but I did not look in detail), ISO 3166 codes define
the
> name of  the countries.

Need to be careful here: an ISO standard cannot normatively specify what
a country shall be called. At best, it can normatively specify how a
country shall be referred to in conformant implementations of that
standard. In fact, I suspect that all that ISO 3166 really intends to do
is to document the political entity/geography region denoted by an
alpha-2 identifier (or one of the others provided) using English and
French names for those countries.

> ISO 639-3 are just codes and autonyms or english
> names are attached to them. ISO15924 is a list and I am not sure
anyone
> knows what a script can exactly be (not clear in the text and in
Michael's
> references to it: usually discussed as a reference to the Unicode
> script.txt file). All this is not ISO 11179 conformant because a
metamodel
> must be homogenous and ... clear.

To the extent that I've looked at ISO 11179, I haven't come across any
conformance criteria. It defines a conceptual model for creating
metadata registries, and provides some guidelines for handling certain
tasks within a metadata registry. The langtag registry* implements some
aspects of the ISO 11179 model, though not all; and I suspect that the
langtag registry can be fully analyzed in terms of the ISO 11179. Unless
there are conformance requirements stated somewhere, however, I don't
think anyone can say that the langtag registry is or isn't conformant.
(If there were something in the langtag registry that went beyond and so
could not be analyzed in terms of the ISO 11179 model, then I think one
might be able to claim some non-conformance. I don't know if that
actually occurs in this case, though.)

* Ditto wrt ISO 639, ISO 3166 and ISO 15924.

> One of the major discrepancy you face is about "script", because you
are
> specifying "langtag" for a multimedia system and use two general
attributes
> (languages and country) and a specialised one (script) making yourself
> incompatible with all the non written modes.

As Jefsey has acknowledged in the past, the draft does not create any
incompatibility with non-written content: it can be applied equally well
to written and non-written content alike.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:22:44 +0200

At 00:21 24/06/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>a country shall be called.

Glad we agree.

>At best, it can normatively specify how a

No. It does not even do that. It just codifies the English and French names.
If you wish to know more I suggest you discuss this with Gérard Lang to 
have it from the horse's mouth. You know his e-mail. I am sure he will be 
glad explaining you this so you may document this WG in your own words.

>actually occurs in this case, though.)

My point is that the Draft could easily be made conformant to ISO 11179 in 
documenting what it wants to document provided that the resulting metamodel 
is homogenous (no layer violation). This means that you cannot mix concepts 
and metaconcept as I think we do. Where it would not be ISO 11179 
conformant would be in assimilating ISO concepts or metaconcept with 
different IETF concept and metaconcepts. I am not ISO 11179 expert and ISO 
11179 is not a finished document in the areas of concern to us but we both 
have ISO 11179 experts (committee members) in our relations and there are 
one or two lurking this list.

So, you fully make my point in saying "I don't think anyone can say that 
the langtag is or isn't conformant".

- the Charter asks we make sure that the Draft conforms the underlying ISO 
standard, so if you don't know you should work on it.
- obviously there are many people able to say it does not conforms asnd we 
all know it because ISO 11179 is a very complex thing and in ignoring it 
the chances we conforms to it probably reach the threshold of the Borel's 
law (probability beyong which something cannot happen).
- you say that the langtag registry implements "some aspects of the ISO 
11179 model". Does this means "of the ISO 11179 standard" or "of an ISO 
Model" what makes an important difference. In any case these aspects should 
be documented and the other aspects should at least be listed and 
explained. This is because their non-support can be understood as a Charter 
disrespect and lead to security problems. Any user believing that the Draft 
is ISO 11179 conformant, in a part where it is not, will face a trust 
discontinuity. Unless this is documented. Unfortunately ISO 11179 is not a 
decalogue or a check-list of pointg of conformance, it is a complex 
doctrine and vocabulary.

This is why you have two possible ways to corelate the Internet with the 
ISO system:

- either you consider the ISO as underlying what you want to do (this seems 
to be what the charter says) and it calls for still much more unless you 
document more precisely your scope and the consequences of this limitations 
(what I always proposed).

- or you document the Internet vision of language based on person to person 
interintelligibility, as a layer above end to end interoperability,  and 
you think as a network architect, addressing the real world multimedia 
issues. This should result in a cross network technologies converging 
clear, simple, stupid, scalable description in a few paragraphs. Then you 
build from it a standard support framework. Then you relate that 
user/reality based network modes to other modes through RFC like the 
langtag/filter for XML and the protocols which may want to use it.

But you cannot stay in between focusing on a single application case. 
Because, even for that application case, the result will not stand: at some 
stage it will be incompatible with other aspects of reality and you will 
have to build another interface, and another, etc. until you are stuck.

>* Ditto wrt ISO 639, ISO 3166 and ISO 15924.

No. I took the example of ISO 3166 because it is the most referred to 
standard, the clearest in term of what it defines (due to its multiple 
tables) the oldest too (started in UIT in 1865). And I documented that ISO 
639 and ISO 15924 were different and that their correlation with ISO 639 
and ISO 15924 was precisely a subject under study, within the ISO 11179 
(and others) framework by TC 37.

Why to hide this WG that what it considers is also discussed by the people 
in charge of the documents this WG has the charter to respect? Is this 
because the Draft of this WG is precisely used to document the ISO debate. 
Please be clear: there is actually a joint work between ISO and IETF on the 
same issue, for the same result, where you want a convergence.

We all want a convergence. We may even agree with your idea that this 
convergence is based upon your propositions. But we cannot accept that this 
is not transparent and that this is based _only_ on your ideas. All the 
more when you come and say you don't know if their common glue (ISO 11179) 
applies, and Debbie Garside says ISO 639-6 wants to be ISO 11179 conformant 
and I say they do not match the whole Internet architecture.

>to written and non-written content alike.

True. But that I acknowledged that it _can_ only documents that we may 
reach an agreement, not that it is documented in the Draft :-) But you are 
most welcome adding it and foreseing the registration procedure. This Draft 
only refers to ISO 15924.

Also, Peter's response denotes a substantial difference in conception which 
affects the whole issue.

- Peter speaks of "written and non-written content alike". This means that 
the reference is the content (i.e. the value)
- I speak (so is ISO) of mode. This means that the reference is the 
container (i.e. the concept).

This may seem a slight difference but this is the whole issue. This Draft 
considers a langtag in a W3C vision, this means based on content. There 
have been documentation enough that adverse changes in formats would affect 
huge existing content (forgetting that XML is a young format and that it is 
likely than in the coming decades and centuries much more content will be 
affected by the langtag).

My position, as is ISO and as is to be by nature IETF is on modes, that is 
to say in exchange parlance on protocols. What is considered is the 
concept, the container. Why? Because the same information (concept) on 
language, script and region (not to mention the needed information on 
referent and context I say needed) can be conveyed in many different ways 
(values) associated to the content. I will take two to make this clearer:

- the Charter says we must use ISO 639, with a mention of ISO 639-3 as an 
example. We can understand this in two different ways (Peter can probably 
better document as he most probably shared in the writing of the Draft). 
Either this means that ISO 639-3 is the leading part and that the IETF 
Draft is to establish the guidelines ISO is establishing in ISO 639-4, or 
it means that ISO has already two code versions to document some languages 
and will add two more, starting with ISO 639-3 and then ISO 639-6. The 
charter the means that this WG should not only focus on ISO 639-1 and -2 
but on new documents starting with ISO 639-3. This and its consequences are 
to be documented in the Draft.

- there is no definition of a language given. There is no rule given to 
associate the language of an exchange to a language code. There is no 
documentation to say if the language codes are used as values ("this is 
English") or as concepts ("this is a version of English"). I can associate 
filtering rules which will define the script and language from the content 
(this is what we do mentally all the time). The problem is that it is not a 
commonly accepted authoritative statement we can trust and build 
applications upon. The is no ISO-English.

To be better understood I will take an example: the lang3tag is going to 
tell me "this is English" and I may have a conflict with my Franglish 
(Randy fully documented that). I will have a vital security issue if the 
"English" security alert was expressed an English I do not understand (my 
Franglish is usually more extended than Basic English). Example "en-Latn -> 
in case of Danger depress key 'D'" and "en-Latn -> in case of Danger hit 
key 'D'", because 'style' was missing and I did not call Randy's experts, I 
am dead. Security consideration due to ISO 11179 disrespect: "English" I 
took as a value was a concept.

Last example, fully documented by this WG. This WG assumes that the 
difference of positions with me are due to my poor Franglish (cf? Randy) 
(sorry to refer to me again, but it makes a good example of cooperative 
international relations, before being confronted to agressive multilingual 
issues of the real life). This common belief makes a dangerous alibi which 
hides the WG that in most of the cases if I am not "corrigible" it is 
because I am right, or at least consistent with a general position they 
refuse to consider.

jfc

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:45:01 +0100

Scríobh Peter Constable:
> a country shall be called...

Names cited in ISO 639, ISO 3166, ISO 15924 (codes for languages,
countries, scripts) are only informative text (to be read as textual
additions of varying accuracy in English/French/etc.), which text is NOT
to be read as normative (only the codes are normative in ISO).

Best,
mg

-- 

Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an 
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* [email-masked] * [email-masked] *

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:56:53 +0200

>to be read as normative (only the codes are normative in ISO).

Yes!
This is why we have to document what they are _used_for_ in our own 
environment.
jfc