Re: [Ietf-languages] [EXTERNAL] Re: language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"

"Sebastian Drude \(personal\)" <drude@xs4all.nl> Sun, 01 December 2019 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <drude@xs4all.nl>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F2A120110 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 13:27:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=xs4all.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id juYfEEXpRcPc for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 13:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF7821200A4 for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 13:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) id DA9227C4B32; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 22:27:03 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861317C4B2C for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 22:27:03 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Authentication-Results: mork.alvestrand.no (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=xs4all.nl
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZgzeIeLYKsON for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 22:26:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: delayed 04:43:30 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Comment: SPF skipped for whitelisted relay - client-ip=192.0.33.71; helo=pechora1.lax.icann.org; envelope-from=drude@xs4all.nl; receiver=ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from pechora1.lax.icann.org (pechora1.icann.org [192.0.33.71]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC2337C381C for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 22:26:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net [194.109.24.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora1.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 030441E0207 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 21:26:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DESKTOP7SP04K7 ([191.31.19.114]) by smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net with ESMTPA id bWjPiQyabFc4FbWjWiOq4u; Sun, 01 Dec 2019 22:26:25 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xs4all.nl; s=s1; t=1575235585; bh=pK5z2nfZ7slUqJBcKH3eUp3mS+LT/Mn2+Ym8LKsn39M=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:From: Subject; b=Xfk0gums9f1PuJBz7Gi2vlkt0CuF3eWiD8evrXH+RpRrswoPUsoq9AgU8FoFa0OhZ jsh8LmWi1tY4AHyW1tilEDj3WF/DiH6KhQBYKc703GQBS7IKnefUd2KT/D4GiFv9RD XIEh+tjamig1c+Y3lZhDX2NfuP9Wr5c6Hcw99VoM+mwENVhwnWuOyhGcQ3c31NjSGV 7GcquTCGXDgvdkPuWR6Q7YRaZzbUbtPjEKluraFAEXfdpUbuyAWFHnSdIJakQ+1T3q RmmtqokJtBV15NLcS9UfIInSb20EE0SFRqcM3qLFDCjRhxeE2BSmiH8Cn6juxvQCUZ MASfIk1vO9hHg==
From: "Sebastian Drude \(personal\)" <drude@xs4all.nl>
To: "'John Cowan'" <cowan@ccil.org>, "'ietf-languages'" <ietf-languages@iana.org>
References: <20191122140445.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.e5d7554235.wbe@email03.godaddy.com> <MW2PR2101MB10651AA60FBA508E53BE023BD5480@MW2PR2101MB1065.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <YTXPR0101MB0861EBEA60D89A2846BCC6B685480@YTXPR0101MB0861.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <003001d5a223$241a34f0$6c4e9ed0$@chello.at> <000001d5a31b$ed1cf4c0$c756de40$@ewellic.org> <022501d5a5fe$9ab420b0$d01c6210$@xs4all.nl> <CAD2gp_S6GtKPnnVmFBOeyPPuxAeWcXNYMdXVZF6V_tGJFfv=NA@mail.gmail.com> <4D059B89F8F9A120.0c6b90b5-c42c-456f-91e4-73dbc9330e54@mail.outlook.com> <CAD2gp_T6CxDSVV6ziGQqFuCxrSdD0H2Pb3mdZmvzoM9S-dYaVA@mail.gmail.com> <00e701d5a866$60986bb0$21c94310$@xs4all.nl> <CAD2gp_TkOQqv7WWJevveTzeCCYf4QoF7G8V9PwuKpgX8ez2Azg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD2gp_TkOQqv7WWJevveTzeCCYf4QoF7G8V9PwuKpgX8ez2Azg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 18:25:54 -0300
Message-ID: <02e001d5a88d$fbc6c2e0$f35448a0$@xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02E1_01D5A874.D67E6CE0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJ6kKBjdiHBdfEadRAibAjSsoFVvQH+CC9bAbFDlwcBdzfjxgGTGLBQAgfUcS8Cp9I21QHfcWozANCf45cCe69s2AKYDD6qpcKOhpA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (pechora1.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.71]); Sun, 01 Dec 2019 21:26:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAoOhgQEAiLLCDG1zNsbrHY2ARoH82h6sLoBrKIPmQ3ATWkFuisz0I64SMwJycXx1oO4WYT1ezCI7NzOjpG8m7F/+Gfe9h2Y06943WCDye1de2G0UZcS zVj6o+CN/tFz5Esu58l1aqAtRYmn4/A3a5ooTN07tSqpJQ34eFT5VJaeSJ0WGWkkZ09OLi3ednf1QA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/QRRipMOMYvCUObdsQQK0i6Ub56c>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] [EXTERNAL] Re: language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-languages.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 21:27:09 -0000

Thanks, dear John,

 

All points well taken.

 

I did get the spirit of your examples, but thought that by pointing to how the Glottolog deals with these specific examples would illustrate well how it functions generally.

 

By the way, I have recently written about the different language catalogues, highlighting ISO and the Glottolog: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24814.

 

Best,

Sebastian

-- 

Museu P.E. Goeldi, CCH, Linguistica  ▪  Av. Perimetral, 1901

Terra Firme, CEP: 66077-530  ▪  Belém do Pará – PA  ▪  Brazil

 <mailto:drude@xs4all.nl> drude@xs4all.nl   ▪  Mobil : +55 (91) 983 733 319

 

From: Ietf-languages <ietf-languages-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: 01 December 2019 17:20
To: ietf-languages <ietf-languages@iana.org>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] [EXTERNAL] Re: language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"

 

 

 

On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 11:42 AM Sebastian Drude (personal) <drude@xs4all.nl <mailto:drude@xs4all.nl> > wrote:

 

As to your specific questions, the Glottolog evaluation is:

 

My questions were rhetorical, but thanks for the links.  I simply picked a few well-known areas of disagreement.

  

I am not sure I understand what you refer to in this context by “identification”, 

 

I mean that our variant subtags, like ISO 639, 15924, and 3166 code elements, serve only to identify particular language varieties (or in a few cases groups of varieties); they contain no classificatory information.  All you can determine from the 639-3 code element "djk" is that it identifies the living individual language named "Eastern Maroon Creole"; by the same token, all you can determine from the subtag "aluki" is that it refers to the Aluki dialect of this language.

 

and I was not aware that this WG ‘is’ a registration mechanism (that seems to be a complicated statement already for ontological reasons 😉);

 

Technically we are not an IETF WG because our activities are not limited in time; we are most closely analogous to an ISO Registration Authority, but without corporate identity. The Language Subtag Reviewer is an IETF appointee, however.

 

where one can read about that; what are the procedures and criteria?

 

In RFC 5646 (the first part of BCP 47) particularly sections 2.2.5 (definition of variant subtags), 3.1.8 (how the connection between particular variants and particular choices of ISO code elements is established), and 3.5 (the registration procedure).  In brief, someone who wishes to register a variant fills out a form, sends it to this mailing list where it is discussed for two weeks or when discussion dies down (whichever comes last), the Language Subtag Reviewer decides to accept or reject the registration (technically subject to appeal to the IETF, but this has never happened), and if accepted it is sent to IANA (the formal registration authority for the IETF) for publication.

 

Which are the varieties already established/identified/registered?

 

In the file <https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry>, the sections containing "Type: variant".  Further details that were used to validate the registration appear in the directory <https://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/lang-subtags-templates.xhtml>.

 

 

 

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org <mailto:cowan@ccil.org> 
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a contract.
       --Specht v. Netscape