RE: [xtm-wg] New language.xtm and country.xtm proposals

["Kal Ahmed" <kal@techquila.com>]

> 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/