Yes, Debbie. I'm looking at ISO
11179 right now internally and with other external projects. It's
in my best interest to look at its application from as many angles as possible.
Happy to help, as you I think you know....
Regards,
Karen Broome
Metadata Systems Designer
Sony Pictures Entertainment
310.244.4384
| "Debbie Garside"
<debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk>
06/30/2006 12:42 PM
|
|
To
|
"'Debbie Garside'" <debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk>,
<Karen_Broome <at> spe.sony.com>
|
|
cc
|
"'Doug Ewell'" <dewell <at> adelphia.net>,
"'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru <at> ietf.org>
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation
into Application of ISO 11179 |
|
Hi Karen
I have looked at this in a little
more detail now and you are correct if we were to consider "Strictly
Conforming" to ISO 11179.
However, having completed a preliminary
test map from the Registry (and associated documentation within the RFC)
to Clause 5 of part 3 (Basic Attributes) as well as the requirements of
part 6 (as outlined in my previous mail), I think Conformance Level 1 (part
3 clause 6) could be achieved without too much effort.
That said, I would really want
to study this in more detail, my investigations are still very much preliminary
- I would like to do a true implementation to be absolutely sure.
If the WG decide to put investigation
of implications and benefits of conformity with ISO 11179 for the Registry
within the new Charter I would be happy to work with you on this if you
have time.
Best regards
Debbie Garside
From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk]
Sent: 28 June 2006 08:44
To: Karen_Broome <at> spe.sony.com
Cc: 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO
11179
Hi Karen
Thanks for your input. I
need to do a little more reading before I respond so it may be a few days
I think there are two ways of
looking at 11179: 1. As a standard to assist in the design of a Meta-data
Registry 2. As a standard to apply to an existing Meta-Data registry.
I have been looking at what is
as a bare minimum absolutely necessary in order to apply ISO 11179 to the
LTRU Registry. I have read the whole standard but I need to do further
depth reading to see what is required for the Registry to be conformant.
There are one or two things that
you have mentioned that do not fit with my interpretation but I would not
want to say more until I have studied it further.
best regards
Debbie
From: Karen_Broome <at> spe.sony.com [mailto:Karen_Broome <at> spe.sony.com]
Sent: 28 June 2006 01:06
To: Debbie Garside
Cc: 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO
11179
Debbie,
Did you review all of ISO 11179 or just 11179-6?
There is a lot more to ISO 11179 than just the administrative practices
(-6) and the previous parts discuss a hierarchical metadata model not mentioned
in your review below. I think you're confusing the terms "value"
and "representation" and the other sections provide clarity on
this. The top of the hierarchy is the Data Concept, which is an abstract
description independent of its representation -- a pure semantic layer.
The hierarchy, as I understand it, would be something like this:
Data Concept
Language Code: A standardized code used to
identify a particular language or dialect.
Data Elements [Data Concept + Representation Class] related to "Language
Code" data concept =
1. ISO
639-1 Language Code: A two-letter code assigned by the ISO 639-1
standard to identify a particular language.
2. ISO
639-2/B Language Code
3. ISO
639-2/T Language Code
4. ISO
639-3 Language Code
5. ISO
639-6 Language Code
Value Domain
Each data element in this case has a "Value
Domain" and the Value Domain contains the individual values such as
"en-US".
...
For the Language Code data concept, the ISO 11179 structure seems relevant
and useful. But when we look at some of the other concepts, it seems less
useful and perhaps problematic:
Data Concept = Script Code
Data Element = ISO 15924 Script Code
Data Concept = Country Code
Data Element = ISO 3166 Country Code
Note that "Description" or even "Subtag Description"
is too vague by ISO 11179 rules (subjective judgment, but there are a lot
of examples that support this view) and I think you would need to break
these out as:
1. En-US
Language Name
2. Fr-FR
Language Name
3. En-US
Script Name
4. En-US
Country Name
etc.
These are unique data elements relating to several data concepts, so the
current model with its "Description" field would need serious
revision to be compliant, I think.
I'm not opposed to further discussion of this moving forward. I only question
how valuable this is for a standard that has so few data elements. It is
a good thing that you're familiar with the section of the standard I've
spent the least time reviewing. :)
Best regards,
Karen Broome
Sony Pictures Entertainment
| "Debbie Garside"
<debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk>
06/27/2006 01:22 AM
|
|
To
|
"'LTRU Working Group'"
<ltru <at> ietf.org>
|
|
cc
|
'Doug Ewell' <dewell <at> adelphia.net>
|
|
Subject
|
[Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into
Application of ISO 11179 |
|
Findings of a preliminary investigation into the application of ISO 11179
to
the RFC3066bis Registry
Cost
Initial investigations suggest that ISO 11179 can be applied to the Registry
at a base level for very little cost. The main cost is in mapping
the ISO
11179 terminology to the existing Registry terminology and a number of
additional data elements would be required. The Registry already
incorporates a system of metadata elements that are consistent with the
model presented within ISO 11179.
In particular the value of the following aspects of ISO 11179-6 should
be
investigated:
Identification
The attributes registration authority identifier (RAI), data identifier
(DI), and version identifier (VI) constitute the international registration
data identifier (IRDI). At least one IRDI is required for an administered
item.
Data identifiers are assigned by a Registration Authority; data identifiers
shall be unique within the domain of a Registration Authority.
Requirements for a Registration Authority, and a discussion of the IRDI,
appear in ISO/IEC 11179-6.
As each Registration Authority may determine its own DI assignment scheme,
there is no guarantee that the DI by itself will uniquely identify an
administered item. For example, if two authorities both use sequential
6-digit numbers, there may be two administered items with the same DI's;
however, the administered items will almost certainly not be the same.
If one administered item appears in two registers, it will have two DI's.
Therefore, both the DI and the RAI are necessary for identification of
an
administered item.
If particular attributes of an administered item change, then a new version
of the administered item shall be created and registered. The registrar
shall determine these attributes. In such a case, a VI is required to
complete the unique identification of an administered item.
For further guidance, see ISO/IEC 11179-6.
An IRDI can serve as a key when exchanging data among information systems,
organizations, or other parties who wish to share a specific administered
item, but might not utilize the same names or contexts.
ISO/IEC 11179 does not specify the format or content of a unique DI.
The IETF (or LTRU) would need to apply for an International Code Designator
(ICD) - a four integer code; this coupled with the organization name as
well
as a "department" identifier (OPI) becomes the IRDI e.g. 1234.IETF.LTRU.
The ICD would be registered by the RA of ISO/IEC 6523 Organization Codes
as
Registration Authority Identifier which is currently BSI.
Implications for the LTRU Registry
The DI (or UI - Unique Identifier) cannot be the Subtag as there are already
conflicting Subtags within the registry (e.g. cy/CY). It is more
preferable
that the unique identifier be the chosen language/country/script name
(please note, this is not the preferred name). This would fit with
the
current ISO 639-3, -5 and -6 models and open the Registry to adoption by
meta-data knowledge grids. (I will take a good look at the naming
conventions within ISO 3166-1 at a later date but prior to publication
of
FDIS 3166-1).
Anomalies within ISO naming conventions of standards issued prior to the
adoption of ISO 11179 can be dealt with on a case by case basis via set
rules.
The Subtag would become a "Representation" with the name being
the unique
"Data Identifier". This would involve having a "Primary
Description" which
would form the DI.
In reviewing the "Required Metadata Attributes" for a "Preferred
Standard"
Status administered item, preliminary investigations reveal no serious
additional requirements other than those already mentioned here. Some
manipulation and interpretation of registry data and standard mandatory
requirements would be required but no difficulties are envisaged. I would
refer the WG to ISO/IEC 11179-6:2005(E); Table B-8 (p.34)
Benefits
The ISO 11179 model allows for there being conflicting codes between
different meta-data registries in conformity with ISO 11179; that is part
of
the conceptual model. ("in conformity with" is correct
- there are
essential parts of the standard).
In essence, the ISO 11179 meta-model supports linkage to other ISO 11179
conformant meta-data registries thus facilitating data exchange/interchange
whilst giving the LTRU Registry ownership of the data elements contained
therein - they become LTRU elements giving room for manoeuvre should ISO
get
it wrong.
This will make language tags more meaningful in the future. The key
word
here is "linkage". ISO 11179 conformant meta-data registries
facilitate the
creation of knowledge grids, grid computing and the semantic web!
Conclusion
At first glance the cost/value ratio favours ISO 11179; there appears to
be
very little cost yet the true benefits of future interoperability and data
exchange are unknown.
It is recommended that further investigation be conducted before application
of ISO 11179 can be discussed at WG level.
Further benefits with regard to data interchange should be explored.
It is further recommended that the "investigation into application
of ISO
11179 Meta Data Registries to the Registry and its registration procedures
be conducted by nominated members of the WG with a view to application"
be
added to the new LTRU Charter.
Best regards
Debbie Garside
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
RSS Feed