Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situatation as example

"Don Osborn" <> Wed, 28 May 2008 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298B63A6CC3; Wed, 28 May 2008 14:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFFF3A6CC3 for <>; Wed, 28 May 2008 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.623
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09gg6xOz63TK for <>; Wed, 28 May 2008 14:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6FF3A6A67 for <>; Wed, 28 May 2008 14:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 18140 invoked from network); 28 May 2008 16:00:09 -0500
Received: from (HELO IBM92AA25595C4) ( by with SMTP; 28 May 2008 16:00:07 -0500
From: "Don Osborn" <>
To: "'Doug Ewell'" <>, "'LTRU Working Group'" <>, <>
References: <> <004d01c8c065$838b8d50$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81>
In-Reply-To: <004d01c8c065$838b8d50$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:00:01 -0400
Message-ID: <008001c8c105$cc421820$64c64860$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcjAZYcMo5qz3QiGTz2OupOCBXNV0wAA1Apw
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'A12n tech support' <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situatation as example
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

In a strict sense I think Debbie and Doug are right. However in the context of our ultimate goal of making the technology work for language(s) we're talking about one element in a system - and there needs to be some way(s) to assure feedback among parts of that larger system. Put another way, there seems to be a risk of important information falling in the gaps if related efforts focus uniquely on their respective tasks and there is no attention to connections.

I had a not dissimilar discussion regarding the locales process (in the PanAfrican Localisation Network project's subproject on locales that I mentioned previously). Some colleagues expressed the thought that they didn't want to get tied up with ISO 639 issues. However dealing with locales, which like tagging depend on ISO 639, provides an excellent opportunity to get feedback on the coding system (with potential benefits in turn for more work on locales). Ultimately we agreed that there will be attention to this issue.

For both locales and tagging, I agree there are more focused goals and deliverables that are essential, and I wouldn’t want to encumber either. However, given our ultimate purpose of facilitating the adaptation of the technology to the realities of language(s), shouldn't there be a way of assuring feedback and communication among the various efforts?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Doug Ewell
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:53 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language
> situatation as example
> Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:
> > Where we need to draw the line is when the discussion comes into the
> > realm of re-designing ISO 639 or making language classification
> > decisions.  This is absolutely beyond the scope of this WG and should
> > be directed to ISO TC37/SC2/WG1 or the ISO 639 JAC.  As this RFC is
> > way over the timescale originally envisaged for completion it is in
> > everyone's interest to try to resolve the issues that are within
> scope
> > rather than focussing on issues that cannot be resolved other than by
> > external parties.  But this is just my humble opinion in the light of
> > trying to get the important issues, such as extlang/no extlang
> > resolved, the ultimate call is with the co-chairs.
> Also my opinion.  Specifically, remaking ISO 639-3 wouldn't be in our
> scope even if we weren't more than 15 months behind schedule (*) but
> given that we are, it is especially important to focus on getting the
> chartered work done.
> (*) I was wrong earlier when I implied the we were over two years
> behind.  I still think the original charter had us finishing our work
> in
> early 2006, but actual publication was always contingent on the rollout
> of ISO 639-3.  Their first "official" downloadable files came in
> February 2007.  So we're "only" 15.n months behind, except that somehow
> I don't feel like IETF LC is right around the corner.
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
>  ˆ
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list

Ltru mailing list