[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: report from ISO TC 37 meeting
This note is to briefly report on the ISO TC 37 meeting held in Seoul, Korea last week.
TC 37 is organised into 4 sub committees each looking after a particular area. The TC started shortly after World War 2 and this was its 20th annual meeting. Its most famous standard is ISO 639 (Language codes). As with all ISO TCs the members are national standards bodies.
TC 37 seems to be very pleased that we have a liaison with them. Kara Warburton, TC Chair, made a point of welcoming me as the OAISIS liaison member.
The meeting also discussed other possible liaisons as TC 37 wants to strengthen its contacts. I thought there was a particular problem with Unicode. SC 4 of TC 37 is working on something called TIME ML which resembles Unicode’s CLDR standard. ETSI was mentioned and Sue-Ellen Wright said that one of the reasons why the LISA standards had gone to ETSI was that ETSI had promised funding.
One of the main topics for the TC was the formation of a new SC for translation and interpreting. This is currently dealt with by a working group of SC 2. The secretariat (Canada) and chair (Norway) had voted against this proposal while all other votes were in favour. It looks like this will go ahead. It is my view that the new SC is the best home for XLIFF.
I attended a meeting on liaisons where we talked about how XLIFF should be brought into ISO. My recommendation was that we do this as part of the peer review for the XLIFF 2.0 release. At the same time as we are about to start the peer review we start a new work item on the fast track route in ISO TC 37. This is sent out for comment and the comments are reported back to the XLIFF TC as part of the peer review. We need to discuss this at our TC meeting but I think it is a useful mechanism for achieving what both TCs want and it shows that the XLIFF TC is the one which develops the standard.
ISO TC 37 would also like to have a member attend our TC as their liaison representative but have so far not suggested anyone.
The issue with MLIF has disappeared. Laurent Romary, the SC 4 chair who raised the issue of XLIFF being part of MLIF, was very supportive and was not suggesting we explore synergies.
Please get back to me with any questions or requests for further information.