Re: [geolang-comment] Code set list

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Mary Nishikawa
| 
| Japan was on a 3-day holiday so I didn't get to my mail. 

It will be my turn soon: I'll be out of email range from tomorrow
morning until Wednesday morning. (Just FYI.)

| I think that this one for regions needs to be included:
|   http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/methods/m49regin.htm
| I think that this is the one that John wanted too.

It was in the list I posted, actually. I called it UN/M49. So we all
seem to agree on this one, which is good.
 
| The list and order looks OK to me. I think that I need to print all
| of these out and compare them to see any overlaps, if any. When we
| take a look at them together we may find that we will want to change
| the order a bit; it will help us to deal with similarities in
| content and how to deal with them.

I agree with all of this. It's really only the idea of doing ISO 639
and 3166 first that's firm at this stage. The rest we can discuss and
agree on when we've had more time to digest all this.

| I am very glad that you and John like creating conversion scripts
| ;-) I do have one chameleon html to xml perl script that could be
| worked on for a mapping; however, it seems that much of this work
| done already, and I am very, very glad.

Oh, I think many of the TC members and observers enjoy writing
scripts, so I'm guessing it won't be too hard to find volunteers for
the various code sets. That's something we can deal with later,
though.
 
| I would like to bring up the matter of maintenance; after we work on
| these, what is the plan? 

This is a very good point. Before establishing the TC we were planning
to set up some kind of formal system by which the TC is responsible
for getting update notifications from the code set mainainers and
update the PSI sets accordingly.

I still think we should do it, but this is one part that we need to
consider in more detail. Probably we need to look at each code set
mainainer and see what procedures, if any, they offer for update
notification, and make proper use of those. 

We may also need to involve OASIS in this, for example if some of them
require postal addresses, which I expect some of them will.

This is one thing the Seattle meeting should discuss. If we can
discuss it a little by email before we get there that would also
help. 

| It is really nice to make preliminary representations but what about
| updates to the representation of our code sets when the legacy is
| updated? I think that we need to think about it.  What is our plan?
| I was afraid to create too many sets because of this, not because of
| the preliminary work.

That's a valid point. 9 sets I think we can handle updates to, but we
should probably be wary of adding more before we know how we intend to
handle updates. We may also choose to drop some. The ones that I
proposed, for example, are more nice-to-haves than must-haves.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >