Subject: Re: [Ltru] Duplicate Busters: Survey #1 [bwo] and [bxx]

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:09:34 -0400

[email-masked] scripsit:

> In other words, can the same name be used with two different code elements 
> without further qualification if they are not  the reference names in both 
> instances?

I don't speak for the IETF, but our current draft document forbids this
situation (within a given domain; "Mongolian" can safely be the name
of both a language and a script, for example), which is why these cases
have come up now.

To draw an example from a more familiar part of the world: there is
plenty of historical precedent, and perhaps even modern-day usage, for
calling German by the name of "Dutch"; but to add "Dutch" to the list
of alternative names for Standard German would be productive of nothing
but horrible confusion.

-- 
There is no real going back.  Though I          John Cowan
may come to the Shire, it will not seem         [email-masked]
the same; for I shall not be the same.          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth,
and a long burden.  Where shall I find rest?           --Frodo
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:36:50 -0700

Joan Spanne wrote:

I agree that [bwo] and [bxx] are not duplicates in the same sense as the Awa and Murik cases.

Accepting this situation as it stands:
[bwo] Boro (reference name), Borna (additional name)
[bxx] Borna (reference name)

is also my basis for suggesting the resolution for [aru] and [arx]  as
[aru] Arawá (reference name), Aruá (additional name)
[arx] Aruá (reference name)

In other words, can the same name be used with two different code elements without further qualification if they are not  the reference names in both instances?
(This is actually a question for the ISO 639 JAC, but I would like comments from these groups, as well, as there is some crossover.)
----
<AP> The problem is that the registry just shows “Description: something”. And the two items may or may not be near each other in the registry. For casual users trying to find the right code element (especially with minority languages), this might lead to mis-tagging or inappropriate choices. The 4646bis draft, therefore, is currently requiring the editor of 4645bis (that’d be Doug) to avoid duplicates and will impose future limitations on registry entries to try and ensure that such confusion doesn’t arise. It isn’t *required* that ISO 639 change descriptions too, but it would be nice.
But what it also means (to finally answer your question) is that the same name cannot be used for two different code elements by rule, since the reference name status isn’t cited in the registry (it’s supposed to be first, though).
Best Regards,
Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Editor – RFC 4646bis

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:12:18 -0500

ISO 639-3 procedure does require that it does not have duplicate names, 
but whether in reference names only or among all names is what needs 
clarification from the ISO 639 perspective (additional names moved into 
ISO 639-3 from Part 2, not originally as part of the standard). I now 
understand Addison's (and Doug's) position that all "descriptions" (which 
in these four cases are constituted by the language names) must be unique 
in the context of RFC 4646 within a single domain (as John Cowan 
remarked).

I will take action to resolve the matter for each of the four (Aruá; Awa; 
Borna; Murik) by early next week.

I am inclined to accept Doug's recommendations, with the exception of 
Aurá. Precedent within the standard uses a state or province level 
geographic qualifier, so those would be [arx] "Aruá (Rodonia State)" and 
[aru] "Aruá (Amazonas State)". If they were geographically proximal to the 
district level, the next choice of qualifier would be classification based 
(the highest level where they are distinct).

Joan Spanne
ISO 639-3/RA
SIL International
7500 W Camp Wisdom Rd
Dallas, TX 75236
[email-masked]

"Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
2008-07-31 02:36 PM

To
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, LTRU Working Group <[email-masked]>, 
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
RE: Duplicate Busters: Survey #1 [bwo] and [bxx]

Joan Spanne wrote:

I agree that [bwo] and [bxx] are not duplicates in the same sense as the 
Awa and Murik cases. 

In other words, can the same name be used with two different code elements 
without further qualification if they are not  the reference names in both 
instances? 
(This is actually a question for the ISO 639 JAC, but I would like 
comments from these groups, as well, as there is some crossover.) 
---- 
<AP> The problem is that the registry just shows “Description: something”. 
And the two items may or may not be near each other in the registry. For 
casual users trying to find the right code element (especially with 
minority languages), this might lead to mis-tagging or inappropriate 
choices. The 4646bis draft, therefore, is currently requiring the editor 
of 4645bis (that’d be Doug) to avoid duplicates and will impose future 
limitations on registry entries to try and ensure that such confusion 
doesn’t arise. It isn’t *required* that ISO 639 change descriptions too, 
but it would be nice.
But what it also means (to finally answer your question) is that the same 
name cannot be used for two different code elements by rule, since the 
reference name status isn’t cited in the registry (it’s supposed to be 
first, though).
Best Regards,
Addison
 
Addison Phillips
 
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
 _______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages