RE: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?

Frank responded to a comment I made that was clearly to do with John's proposal, and he did NOT make clear IMO what his concern was until several msgs had been exchanged.

If there are concerns about questionable entries for constructed languages in the draft code table for 639-3, then it is perfectly reasonable (i) to ask a general question as to the criteria for inclusion of such languages or (ii) to submit feedback to the 639-3 RA regarding those entries. 

Frank did neither but rather launched into a vague critique of 639-3 with random potshots: I don't like this entry; those two entries have similar names so must be suspect... And he chose an inflammatory subject line. That's got about as much professionalism as someone saying any project Frank has worked on must be bogus just because they have an upset stomach and are cranky.

The answer to the general question, as John Cowan mentioned, is that there *are* criteria for inclusion and that not just *anything* is accepted. A constructed language must have a body of literature read by members of some community. Requests for an ID from people making up a few words will not be accepted.

Re the second, John Cowan submitted feedback to the RA, and it was agreed that those should not be included.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 6:58 PM
> To: Frank Ellermann; ltru@lists.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?
> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> The group was indeed discussing type and scope and so on, but
> Frank made it clear that he was looking at something else by
> changing the Subject (the specific term 'bogus' is in my opinion
> a bit unfortunate).
> 
> In my personal view, Frank is asking some rather stretched,
> but in some sense valid question: If entries such as orq,
> with existing documented texts of 30 words overall, can get
> into ISO 639-3 (draft), then what guarantee, if any, does
> ISO 629-3 (and therefore our subtag registry) have against
> denial of service attacks where people make up new languages
> with a little bit of text?
> 
> I'm sure you have a good answer to this question, and I'm
> looking forward to see it.
> 
> Regards,     Martin.
> 
> At 06:59 06/10/11, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> >Peter Constable wrote:
> >
> >> Is it useful to know that orq is an individual, constructed language
> >> and that that language is Orcish? Yes.
> >
> >alpha-3 is a finite set, if any language of 30 words gets its own code
> >639-3 is in trouble, and the subtag registry with it.
> >
> >> Again, what is the point of these questions?
> >
> >Protecting the subtag registry from bogus entries while it's on a one
> >way street (nothing ever removed) with a known end (26*26*26).
> >
> >> And explain to me how this is not a random attack on 639-3, since
> >> that is certainly how it appears to me.
> >
> >Of course it's a random attack, I looked into the source, because John
> >proposed to preserve its Language-Type info, and the "C" attracted my
> >attention.  There are not many "C", and "orq" is one, and as it happens
> >I thought (yesterday) I know what "orq" is about.  And today I'm sure.
> 
> 
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

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