RE: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field

The types and scopes grew out of Gary Simons and I analyzing the
existing 639 set as we tried to sort out what was in/out of scope for
639-3 and how things in 639-1/-2 related to things in Ethnologue 14.
Also, it was helpful for us in identifying which agency -- SIL or
Linguist List -- was the primary source. It was clearly necessary to
include scopes as they are used in normative ways, but we also thought
it was useful to include the types as that seemed helpful for users in
working out what the denotee is -- keep in mind that the only semantics
provided by the standard itself are in these attributes: name, type,
scope.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:33 AM
To: Mark Davis
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field

Mark Davis scripsit:

> Most people will be picking among living languages, and this
> classification only separates out 8% of those. Making a list of 7K
> languages 8% smaller is not the key to an effective UI ;-).

I agree.  However, eliminating non-living languages from a listing of
languages indigenous to the U.S. (according to Ethnologue) reduces the
list from 238 to 162, a 32% reduction.

Using the Ethnologue "nearly extinct" category allows a further
reduction
to only 92 languages, a full 62% reduction.  Unfortunately, 639-3 does
not use this type.

Peter C, could you enlighten us on what the language type information
in 639-3 is intended for?

-- 
Ambassador Trentino: I've said enough. I'm a man of few words.
Rufus T. Firefly: I'm a man of one word: scram!
        --Duck Soup                     John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>

_______________________________________________
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