Interesting point. The standard, indeed, doesn't impose any such restriction.
There are a couple of theoretical possibilities here:
1) C is macrolanguage-encompassed by B, C is macrolanguage-encompassed by A, and B is macrolanguage-encompassed by A
2) C is macrolanguage-encompassed by B, C is macrolanguage-encompassed by A, but B is not macrolanguage-encompassed by A and A is not macrolanguage-encompassed by B
It seems that in case 1, it shouldn't be necessary to declare 'A is macrolanguage of' as a property of C as long as the other two are declared: the encompassment is necessarily transitive (A must encompass C) -- even though that transitivity isn't explicitly stated, I don't see any other reasonable interpretation.
As for 2, I'd hope the JAC would never create such a situation in the data.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:28 PM
To: Phillips, Addison
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Confirmation question about registry fields
Phillips, Addison scripsit:
> - Macrolanguage
>
> By definition, a language cannot be encompassed by more than one
> language in ISO 639-3.
Is that really 100% clear from the text of 693-3?
--
Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.