Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Preparations for smart matching

From: "L.Gillam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:02:57 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> > Would you include the 639-3 "macrolanguages" that Peter described as
> > being so extensionally defined?
> 
> They are extensionally defined, and what they reflect is that 
> (as Peter
> doesn't quite say) ISO 639-2 is a folk taxonomy, and as such doesn't
> match up very well with 639-3's rather more scientific coverage of the
> same ground.  In principle, there's an ISO 639-2 code for every text,
> but only on the principle of "split local things, lump remote things"
> that folk taxonomies generally employ.

The original point here was that "smart matching" would have to
do a bit more than "tag-dropping", fallback or, perhaps fall-forward as
seems to be being suggested. Association between 639-2 and 639-3 is just
that little bit more because of this. Where -5 fishes the same alpha3
pool, anybody deciding to incorporate this also would have further such
work to do because of associations. Deciding whether group membership
or generalisation/specialisation governs the relationship will produce
interesting algorithms I suspect.

> > The 639-5 language groups?
> 
> I haven't seen even an editor's draft of -5 [*], so I can't comment
> specifically.  But I will note that in Linnaean taxonomy, heroic
> attempts are made to preserve stability for both entities (where the
> facts permit it) and labels (to the point where ordinary meaning is
> flatly disregarded) at the species level, but no such 
> attempts are made
> at higher taxonomic levels, which change all the time and are 
> the subject
> of many disagreements.

But perhaps this is where a "framework of distinctions" (e.g. 
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/), or "facet analysis" (e.g.
http://www.kmconnection.com/DOC100100.htm) may provide a bridge - 
the hierarchy is to some extent fixed - dependencies between some
facets but not necessarily others - but to others derived. "script"
is one facet, "country" another. It's already being done anyway in
the tag requests themselves, it's just that the tag currently
resembles the request. 

> ([*] The notion of ISO that people are going to *pay* for drafts, and
> in the two figures of CHF at that, is simply laughable.)

I'm happy to make the draft available for expert comment - the ISO process
definitely allows for this. I don't believe you can actually *buy* the
drafts anywhere - I may be wrong, and perhaps ISO is missing a business
opportunity here!

> > I wonder how you'd create a theory-independent system?
> 
> I wouldn't even try.  I'd accept the collective-language codes of -2
> as a regrettable consequence of the way it was designed, or rather not
> designed, and leave it at that.

Accept but reduce dependency on, or keep using because of "legacy code"?
I discovered yesterday, to my sheer horror, that an Oracle V10 client could not
speak to an Oracle V8.1.5 server. But, an Oracle V8.1.5 server will apparently
not work on a RedHat FC3 or RHEL 3 platform, and the platform it is currrently
on cannot be hack-proofed for web accesses. Do Microsoft still support
Windows 95/98? There are ways to work around the problem, but as time goes
by the work arounds become an artform - and I'm not a great fan of art. :-(

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:18:53 -0500

L.Gillam scripsit:

> that little bit more because of this.

Using the zh-yue style makes this much easier on tag matchers, and only
slightly harder on taggers.

> Where -5 fishes the same alpha3
> work to do because of associations. 

Which is why I hope it never does get used in RFC-style language tagging,
other than the unavoidably grandfathered cases from 639-2.

> definitely allows for this.

Thanks.  Please post an URL, or if you are not allowed to do that, please
send me a copy.

> I don't believe you can actually *buy* the

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CombinedQueryResult.CombinedQueryResult?queryString=639
claims that you can buy the DIS 639-3 (but not the WDs 639-4 or 639-5).

> Accept but reduce dependency on, or keep using because of "legacy code"?

Not legacy code so much as legacy tagging.  There may be documents out there
tagged "nai", worthless as that is for almost all purposes except completeness,
so we can't just deprecate it wholesale -- the argument has been made that
expecting people on the other side of the planet to discriminate between
various North American Indian languages in their holdings is just unreasonable.

-- 
John Cowan       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        <[email-masked]>
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:26:08 -0000

>>claims that you can buy the DIS 639-3 (but not the WDs 639-4 or 639-5).

639-4 is not in existence yet (quite strange given that it is supposed to
provide the framework for 3,5 and 6) so no working draft is available.
639-5 has only just been posted (in the last 5 weeks) to members of the WG.
I have a copy (one sent to JC) if any one wants it... I assume I am not
going against any ISO rules.

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: 23 March 2005 19:19
To: L.Gillam
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Preparations for smart matching

> drafts anywhere - I may be wrong, and perhaps ISO is missing a business

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CombinedQueryResult.CombinedQueryResult?queryStrin
g=639
claims that you can buy the DIS 639-3 (but not the WDs 639-4 or 639-5).

Not legacy code so much as legacy tagging.  There may be documents out there
tagged "nai", worthless as that is for almost all purposes except
completeness,
so we can't just deprecate it wholesale -- the argument has been made that
expecting people on the other side of the planet to discriminate between
various North American Indian languages in their holdings is just
unreasonable.

-- 
John Cowan       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
<[email-masked]>
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)