[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] New language.xtm and country.xtm proposals
> Kal Ahmed wrote: > [...] > > Perhaps I'm way off here, but don't people use the ISO codes > precisely to > > unambiguously represent the country/language ? > > Yes they do. But the codes themselves are described as codes, not as > languages or countries. ISO and IETF disabuse themselves of that semantic > problem and basically say that if you want to refer to "German" using > our code, you're free to do so, but not with the idea that you're > doing any more than that. It's sort of like when you buy something and > they give you that multipage legal disclaimer that you toss away without > reading. "Please don't hold us responsible for the problems that might > occur if two or more people use our codes to represent things like > languages and countries that we know don't have any firm semantic > boundaries, that if you use 'English' between yourselves you agree > that it's just a proxy for whatever you think 'English' is." > > My updated topic maps do not use "ISO Language Code" as the typing > topic, but of the updates simply describes the PSIs as instances of > languages or countries, since that semantic (as I've been for quite > awhile now) been trying to point out would be a fallacy. > Hmm - thats a shame, because I think that a set of PSIs for both the countries themselves would be a major step forward in permitting consistent topic map merging. Of course, I fully agree with your assertion the codes are not the countries, but PSIs *based on* those codes could serve as a starting point for such a topic map (and yes, I do realise that there are geo-political issues and historical boundary changes which have to be resolved or side-stepped by such a topic map). > As for debating this much further, I've been trying to make plain that > I want this process to occur in the group. I find Lars Marius' tactic > of posting this now perhaps suits his agenda but is simply requiring > that I either take part in an unformed discussion now or bow out I'm sorry if you feel that I am uninformed. I believe that I am only uninformed about your perspective on language.xtm and coutry.xtm, hence my question. > and wait until we have a proper process under which to discuss this > and come to real resolution over the issues. I prefer to bow out and > wait the several weeks until Montreal. > That is a pity as I am not able to attend the meeting at Montreal and I feel that I would like to contribute to this discussion. If you are not willing to do so then there is no point in banging my head against this particular wall. I have plenty of others that also require precious forehead skin. Cheers, Kal ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/2U_rlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@yahooGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@yahooGroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC