RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion
Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Thu, 22 June 2006 01:14 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtDlx-0003KP-Up; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:14:18 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtDlw-0003KK-OP for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:14:16 -0400
Received: from scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtDlu-0005ZF-3g for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:14:16 -0400
Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k5M1E8Cg011109; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:14:08 +0900 (JST)
Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 60da_67e54ab2_018c_11db_81ac_0014221f2a2d; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:14:08 +0900
Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5M1Dx8E031996; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:14:06 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060622100018.03badd80@localhost>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:13:38 +0900
To: Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com, Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion
In-Reply-To: <OF742DA22D.255EFA13-ON88257194.00745B3B-88257194.0079549C@ spe.sony.com>
References: <004c01c6954e$5d862d20$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> <OF742DA22D.255EFA13-ON88257194.00745B3B-88257194.0079549C@spe.sony.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
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
Hello Karen, At 07:04 06/06/22, Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com wrote: >Yes, I'm still lurking. My two cents: This is way more worth than 2 cents! It is the first post in a long time that actually said more about ISO 11179 than its number and the degree to which we 'might consider' it. As a co-chair, I want encourage everybody to either express their opinions on ISO 11179 with a similar level of detail as Karen, or to stop repeating their position. As a technical contributor, Karen's arguments that ISO 11179 is for way bigger things than our language tag registry is very convincing. Unless somebody else brings up equally convincing arguments, my personal opinion is that we should not spend time on IOS 11179 as a group. Regards, Martin. >I've looked into ISO 11179 very deeply in spots as I'm actively arguing for some of its data element naming/description best practices in another group I serve. The metadata standard I work on for this group has about 2,000 data elements (not data *values* such as "en-US", but *elements* such as "RFC 3066 Language Code"). Each element must be assigned a unique, descriptive name and XML symbol. The naming and unambiguous description of elements in large standards such as this can be very complicated and benefits from the conceptual metamodel, naming guidelines, and other best practices found in ISO 11179. > >RFC 3066 does not seem to approach the scope of this work at all as far as the number of data elements it contains. It seems to me that ISO 11179 is more appropriate for registries with a larger number of metadata types -- something on the IANA scale, not just RFC 3066. > >For the record, I have not read the administrative practices section as carefully as the data element naming, metamodel, and description work. It's all good stuff, but to me it seems aimed at a registry with a greater variety of data. > >FWIW, > >Karen Broome >Sony Pictures Entertainment #-#-# 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
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Charter Discussion Martin Duerst
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Randy Presuhn
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Martin Duerst
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Felix Sasaki
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Martin Duerst
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Martin Duerst
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Erkki Kolehmainen
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Misha Wolf
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Misha Wolf
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Misha Wolf
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Ted Hardie
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Karen_Broome
- Rechartering terminology (was: [Ltru] Charter Dis… Martin Duerst
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Martin Duerst
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] Charter Discussion Peter Constable