Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:25:42 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> ... We already have a registry in place, one that has a fairly-well 
> defined conceptual model (in spite of current debate over certain 
> details) and also established processes for maintenance and 
> administration -- processes with respect to which we have limitations 
> in our flexibility to change.

I think the "current debate over certain details" is a sign that it 
might be worthwhile to define the conceptual model more clearly.  There 
is a significant disparity between list members' views of the purpose of 
the Description field: is it a cross-reference to ISO standards, a 
string that uniquely identifies the language (script, etc.), an English 
translation, a language-dependent transliteration, or a prescriptive 
spelling with "recommended" letters and punctuation?

At the very least, even if we decide not to adopt ISO 11179 principles, 
we should answer this particular question more definitively.

> Now, I'm sure that if we studied ISO 11179 we would gain a better 
> understanding of the nature of our endeavour and that we would find 
> ways to improve upon what we have. But, I cannot say whether the 
> cost/benefit ratio would be on the benefit side. The most I can say is 
> that I have not seen reasons to set an expectation of greater benefit 
> than cost.

All that is being suggested is that we not reject this effort a priori. 
A few people who are well-versed in the standard can explain its 
principles to others, and a reasonably well-informed discussion can 
proceed from there.  It's not necessary for every list member to read 
all 266 pages.  I doubt every LTRU member has read ISO 639, 3166, and 
15924 in their entirety either.

> The relative importance to incorporate ISO 639-3 over implementation 
> of ISO 11179 is, IMO, a couple of orders of magnitude.

Nobody has suggested that we would have to make a choice between 
incorporating 639-3 and implementing 11179.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:10:09 -0700

> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:26 AM

> the Description field...

> we should answer this particular question more definitively.

Sure. But I don't think implementing ISO 11179 is particularly going to help us determine what the purpose of the Description field is. 

Peter Constable