OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

geolang-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: [geolang-comment] ISSUE 3: The "language" published subject

* Steve Pepper
| I stand corrected (and should admit that I have never actually even
| *looked* at ISO 639 itself!). I assumed that the standard only
| contained codes for languages. If it also "defines" language groups,
| then I believe we should include those as well, and also a published
| subject for "language group".

I agree that we will need both subjects.

Does anyone disagree and think we should skip "language group" as a
| However, I also stand by my original point, which is that we don't
| "create" anything ourselves; we only reflect what is in ISO 639, warts
| and all. And where there are no intensional definitions, we use the
| implicit extensional definitions.

That could be tricky. How would you define the subject "language"
extensionally? If you enumerate all the subjects that are instances of
it aren't you then saying that all those subjects are instances of
this class by fiat? And isn't that what you didn't want to do? (I'm
uneasy about it myself.)

| The job of fixing (or refining) ISO 639 should be left to experts
| like SIL.

Agreed. It's way beyond our scope. What we *could* do would be to
collaborate with SIL on creating published subjects for a better

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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC