[Ltru] RE: Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Tue, 27 June 2006 10:25 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvAkh-0003zJ-Uv; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:25:03 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvAkh-0003z9-8o for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:25:03 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fv9vg-0000mN-93 for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:32:20 -0400
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com ([62.128.193.155]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fv9r9-00025V-C5 for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:27:40 -0400
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5R9RQnD014130; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:27:26 +0100
Received: from DebbieLaptop (i-83-67-121-192.freedom2surf.net [83.67.121.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5R9RLCS013899; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:27:26 +0100
Message-Id: <200606270927.k5R9RLCS013899@mta5.iomartmail.com>
From: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: 'Debbie Garside' <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>, 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:27:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
In-Reply-To:
thread-index: AcaZws1Q37aMDb5pRAOCrDyITbo8pAACIrLw
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 21be852dc93f0971708678c18d38c096
Cc: 'Doug Ewell' <dewell@adelphia.net>
Subject: [Ltru] RE: Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

CORRECTION

I wrote:

----
The IETF (or LTRU) would need to apply for an International Code Designator
(ICD) - a four integer code; this coupled with the organization name as well
as a "department" identifier (OPI) becomes the IRDI e.g. 1234.IETF.LTRU.
The ICD would be registered by the RA of ISO/IEC 6523 Organization Codes as
Registration Authority Identifier which is currently BSI. 
----

It should read:

----

The IETF (or LTRU) would need to apply for an International Code Designator
(ICD) - a four integer code; this coupled with the organization name as well
as a "department" identifier (OPI) becomes the RAI e.g. 1234.IETF.LTRU.  The
ICD would be registered by the RA of ISO/IEC 6523 Organization Codes as
Registration Authority Identifier which is currently BSI.   

----

The change is from "IRDI" to "RAI"

Debbie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk] 
> Sent: 27 June 2006 09:22
> To: 'LTRU Working Group'
> Cc: 'Doug Ewell'
> Subject: Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179
> 
> Findings of a preliminary investigation into the application 
> of ISO 11179 to the RFC3066bis Registry
> 
> Cost
> Initial investigations suggest that ISO 11179 can be applied 
> to the Registry at a base level for very little cost.  The 
> main cost is in mapping the ISO 11179 terminology to the 
> existing Registry terminology and a number of additional data 
> elements would be required.  The Registry already 
> incorporates a system of metadata elements that are 
> consistent with the model presented within ISO 11179.  
> 
> In particular the value of the following aspects of ISO 
> 11179-6 should be investigated: 
> 
> Identification
> The attributes registration authority identifier (RAI), data 
> identifier (DI), and version identifier (VI) constitute the 
> international registration data identifier (IRDI). At least 
> one IRDI is required for an administered item. 
> 
> Data identifiers are assigned by a Registration Authority; 
> data identifiers shall be unique within the domain of a 
> Registration Authority. 
> 
> Requirements for a Registration Authority, and a discussion 
> of the IRDI, appear in ISO/IEC 11179-6.
> 
> As each Registration Authority may determine its own DI 
> assignment scheme, there is no guarantee that the DI by 
> itself will uniquely identify an administered item. For 
> example, if two authorities both use sequential 6-digit 
> numbers, there may be two administered items with the same 
> DI's; however, the administered items will almost certainly 
> not be the same. 
> 
> If one administered item appears in two registers, it will 
> have two DI's. Therefore, both the DI and the RAI are 
> necessary for identification of an administered item. 
> 
> If particular attributes of an administered item change, then 
> a new version of the administered item shall be created and 
> registered. The registrar shall determine these attributes. 
> In such a case, a VI is required to complete the unique 
> identification of an administered item.
> 
> For further guidance, see ISO/IEC 11179-6. 
> 
> An IRDI can serve as a key when exchanging data among 
> information systems, organizations, or other parties who wish 
> to share a specific administered item, but might not utilize 
> the same names or contexts.
>  
> ISO/IEC 11179 does not specify the format or content of a unique DI.
> 
> The IETF (or LTRU) would need to apply for an International 
> Code Designator (ICD) - a four integer code; this coupled 
> with the organization name as well as a "department" 
> identifier (OPI) becomes the IRDI e.g. 1234.IETF.LTRU.  The 
> ICD would be registered by the RA of ISO/IEC 6523 
> Organization Codes as Registration Authority Identifier which 
> is currently BSI.  
> 
> Implications for the LTRU Registry
> The DI (or UI - Unique Identifier) cannot be the Subtag as 
> there are already conflicting Subtags within the registry 
> (e.g. cy/CY).  It is more preferable that the unique 
> identifier be the chosen language/country/script name (please 
> note, this is not the preferred name).  This would fit with 
> the current ISO 639-3, -5 and -6 models and open the Registry 
> to adoption by meta-data knowledge grids. (I will take a good 
> look at the naming conventions within ISO 3166-1 at a later 
> date but prior to publication of FDIS 3166-1).  
> 
> Anomalies within ISO naming conventions of standards issued 
> prior to the adoption of ISO 11179 can be dealt with on a 
> case by case basis via set rules.   
> 
> The Subtag would become a "Representation" with the name 
> being the unique "Data Identifier". This would involve having 
> a "Primary Description" which would form the DI.
> 
> In reviewing the "Required Metadata Attributes" for a 
> "Preferred Standard" Status administered item, preliminary 
> investigations reveal no serious additional requirements 
> other than those already mentioned here. Some manipulation 
> and interpretation of registry data and standard mandatory 
> requirements would be required but no difficulties are 
> envisaged. I would refer the WG to ISO/IEC 11179-6:2005(E); 
> Table B-8 (p.34)
>  
> Benefits
> The ISO 11179 model allows for there being conflicting codes 
> between different meta-data registries in conformity with ISO 
> 11179; that is part of the conceptual model.  ("in conformity 
> with" is correct - there are essential parts of the standard).
> 
> In essence, the ISO 11179 meta-model supports linkage to 
> other ISO 11179 conformant meta-data registries thus 
> facilitating data exchange/interchange whilst giving the LTRU 
> Registry ownership of the data elements contained therein - 
> they become LTRU elements giving room for manoeuvre should 
> ISO get it wrong.
> 
> This will make language tags more meaningful in the future.  
> The key word here is "linkage".  ISO 11179 conformant 
> meta-data registries facilitate the creation of knowledge 
> grids, grid computing and the semantic web!
> 
> Conclusion
> At first glance the cost/value ratio favours ISO 11179; there 
> appears to be very little cost yet the true benefits of 
> future interoperability and data exchange are unknown.  
> 
> It is recommended that further investigation be conducted 
> before application of ISO 11179 can be discussed at WG level. 
> 
> Further benefits with regard to data interchange should be explored.
> 
> It is further recommended that the "investigation into 
> application of ISO 11179 Meta Data Registries to the Registry 
> and its registration procedures be conducted by nominated 
> members of the WG with a view to application" be added to the 
> new LTRU Charter.  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> Debbie Garside
> 



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru