[Ltru] [A little OT] Feedback and Communication was (Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language )

["Debbie Garside" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Don

On the question of adaption of technologies in relation to language tagging
I believe this is possibly the right forum depending on how much the RFC can
assist - although certainly not the only one.  On the question of feedback
on particular tags and whether there is a requirement for new subtags
IETF-languages is the correct forum - generally after the ISO 639 process
has been pursued and failed.

That said, very often good discussion is (rightly) stopped on both LTRU and
IETF-Languages as being out of scope or off topic. So, I do see what you are
trying to say and I would agree that, perhaps, there is a need for another
forum that can communicate feedback on the various efforts.    Not sure who
would or should have 'ownership' of that forum.  I think it would prove very
interesting.  I think it could also prove useful for standardization efforts
when applying for new, or changes to, ISO 639 codes if feedback/actual use
case scenarios from a user community is presented in support of such an
application.

If you want to establish such a forum I would certainly join.

Best wishes

Debbie
PS We/you could do it as part of our remit within WLDC



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Osborn [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 28 May 2008 22:00
> To: 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group'; [e-mail]
> Cc: 'A12n tech support'
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language
> situatation as example
>
> 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?
>
> Don
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 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
> > http://www.ewellic.org
> > http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ^
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>
>
>
>




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru