<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [OT] RE: [ga] Aviation languages
Dear Debbie,
I am rather sorry that you sent this mail. It is totally out of
context with regard to my proposal and with the seriousness of our
own work ("which does not exist"). You seem to want to deliberately
confirm the idea that several have expressed that you do not know
exactly where you are going.
Anyway, as a consequence:
1. the public business coopetition proposal that I made previously is
now revoked: you lost the necessary credibility, at least among the
MLTF community.
2. you have also now lost the support that I privately campaigned in
favor of your representing the @large at the top ICANN community levels.
3. it must be clear that my proposition sought to correct, not to
sponsor, the errors that populate your mails and documents (ex.
"your" [you claim to be the author] ISO TC46 NWIP).
4. the seasoned experts, normalizers, lawyers, and politicians we
relate with, know that ad hominems are the technical responses of
those having none. However, you might have, this time, gone one
slander too far: the consequences of which will be examined in the
coming weeks with the various entities that I consider affected by
this slanderous, public mail of yours.
You obviously did not understand the technical and human issues
involved. This wholly confused your political and ethical approach.
Sincerely,
jfc
PS. For information, I am on vacation until the end of this month.
At 10:54 18/07/2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
JFC
I think we need a little clarification here as you seem to be very
adept at taking other people's ideas and claiming them as your own.
Wrt RFC4646, I believe you had been suspended and then permanently
excluded from the IETF forum many months prior to RFC4646 being
published. In any case most members of the forum had blocked you so
any ideas you had would not have been received.
Wrt MLTF (your spin-off because IETF excluded you) it is a one man
band as are AFRAC and INTLNET and the many other entities you
create. No doubt you will start an organization which will mean
that you can "legitimately" use the domain name of "my" WLDC
(<http://www.wldc.org>www.wldc.org) that you are currently cyber squatting.
The IETF RFC that you have written is again just you and there is
not one other person that I can find within IETF who supports it.
The reason for your being invited to the ISO meeting in Paris, to
try to stop you from sending all the emails to ISO CS, AFNOR (30 a
day) and the ISO TC46 WG involved with discussing the BSI's NWIP for
Internationalized Country Codes. That is all. It was not in any
way to include your "organizations" or your views in the ISO process.
I count myself as fortunate that I work for myself otherwise my
employer would be receiving a telephone call from the "President" of
one of your organizations - others have not been so lucky causing
them great distress.
If you stopped the pretences JFC and stopped claiming other people's
ideas as your own you may find that people would take you more
seriously. I have told you this many times and still you keep doing
the same thing. Post as yourself and leave me and my businesses out of it.
Best
Debbie
----------
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of JFC Morfin
Sent: 18 July 2007 01:41
To: Debbie Garside; roberto@xxxxxxxxx; 'Jaap Akkerhuis'; genetech@xxxxxxxx
Cc: ga
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: [ga] Aviation languages
Dear all,
This post uses the GA debate example to the advantage of the MLTF
mailing list. However, some on the GA mailing list may be interested
in commenting on it, since it is a key issue for naming as well as
local Internet usage. I will forward their comments on the MLTF and
will be used to formalise this post into an IETF Draft for information.
jfc
---
Subject: "Aviation Languages"
The subject of this ICANN/GNSO/GA thread seems to have a
particularly well defined meaning in English...since the GA Members
are extensively discussing it. In French, it is only a
non-translatable confusion. This is important for understanding as
to just why Debbie and her WLDC
(<http://thewldc.org/>http://thewldc.org) and our
(<http://mltf.org/>http://mltf.org) MLTF tend to have various
converging and diverging points of view and motivations, that I
propose to make into coopeting ( http://mltf.org/070622-prop.pdf).
The same remark applies to ISO TC 37 and ISO TC 46 and current NWIP.
1. The confusion
The confusion comes into play when the English "language" term is
used to support two very different concepts that French differentiates:
the language of a linguistic community (English, Italian, French) -
in French: "langue"
the language of a specialized community (Aviation, Internet [for
ALAC], programming, e-commerce, standards) down to even a single
individual in a given situation - in French: "langage".
To clarify this confusion, one must take into account that:
most do not realize that to technically support billions of
"langages" and a hundred "langues" is quite similar, in which each
linguistic unit is supported via an ad hoc corpus enacted through
the same architecture. The real issue is the architecture, and not
the number of languages.
a human person has his/her own "langages" in his/her own single or
few "langues" for education and memory limitation reasons.
the Internet community largely has more difficulties due to the
translation costs and administation.
Internet technology has a near imossibility due to the lack of a
presentation layer in the TCP/IP pile.
the Unicode community has fewer due to the UCS and CLDR (locale files).
the DNS has no real problem except for the confusion over what it is
to do, how, and where.
the computer has no difficulty, provided that it has the proper
architecture and documentation.
imposing a standardized "langage" (for example: administrative
language as documented by ISO 3166-1) is not a technical barrier to Trade.
2. The current situation
Atop that situation, a cultural technical, political, and commercial
status quo has developed:
English represents most of the presentation-session-less missing
Internet Interoperating System
It is like aviation: only one single global English "presentation"
(general usage) is permitted, and possible locally limited Italian
sessions (on a per flight basis). This is not too dangerous, because
if you hear an aviation "langage" dialog, whatever the "langue", you
can still understand most of its aviation specific "langage". The
same with ICANN: you can understand most of what an ICANN paper is
about (not what it says) in many languages.
It builds language support as an option atop that of the environment.
This is the consistent IETF approach for the last 10 years. This
results in the "internationalization" of the mediums, "localization"
of the ends, and description (tagging) of the content. This is
documented by the BCP 47. We all know as IDNs, as an application
additional option.
It calls for language filtering instead of support
When a language is requested, and is not supported, the dialog is
redirected towards a less acceptable but possible language, or
filtered out altogether (RFC 4647). I do not speak Finnish, but you
can try to understand my Estonian or my Hungarian pages. At the end
of the day everyone will e-commerce and work together using the
default English language.
3. The poor consequences
This may seem a good thing to English speakers. However...
it is likely that human beings, being human beings, that there will
be no e-commerce by that time.
the resulting impact on cultures would be a tremendous catastrophy.
the lack of resultant technical development would delay the world by decades.
etc.
This debate belongs to that cultural status quo among technical
people, which denies people the Human Right to use their own
language to live, manage, and innovate. The problem (well documented
as a basic Internet problem by the IAB in RFC 3869) is that there is
no commercial incentive today to support more "langues". From this
comes, the difficulties that Debbie documents and you (GA) meet.
This is obviously highly detrimental to culture and humanity's
legacy. And this matches two of the five international legal
definitions of what a genocide is (to force people to live in using
another language, to educate kids in a culture not desired by their parents).
However, there are technical, political, and further on enormous
commercial incentives to support "langages", and an awful lot of
money that is poorly spent because the proper model is confused by
this English language confusion (II am referring to the metadata
domain and semantic web).
4. The correct approach
The other approach we support is architectural, and is motivated by
network, security, etc. development, which we call
"multilingualization". It consists of being able to support every
language the way English is supported today. either people do not
understand what it means and consider us as dumb fools and boring
trolls; either they understand us too well and they are afraid of
the impact on their technology, policy, e-commerce, cultures, etc.
and oppose or disregard us. or they understand the importance of
this impact and support us, but we are at the beginning of a long
march for research, devlopment, and deployment. It takes a very long
time to understand and accept the obvious: this is no exception.
This only delays development and innovation for eveyone, and
endangers a correct approach to semantic processing and networking.
5. The stakes
Languages are human brain to brain interintelligibility protocols,
which use different syntaxes and terminologies with an impact on
logical exchanges, supporting semantic (meaning's level) relations,
in order to exchange information (content) in a manner that is
itself (pragmatics) a compression of knowledge [in a relation
wherein you assume that much information is already known from your
interlocutor]. Syntax, terminology [in one or several languages],
semantic approaches, content thematics, pragmatic usages together
form a pattern that could identify originating individual brains
(human or computer). There are therefore enormous incentives for
engaging in "langage" related developments and protection
research.Languages are also brain programming languages. Working on
languages permits one to better educate, inform, etc. and analyze
knowledge, in which working on a "polynymy" (invariance in
describing a concept in different languages) one greatly simplifies
the conceptual analysis and the interest of the semantic web. There
are also, therefore, huge incentives for engaging in "langue"
related developments.
6. The presentation layer
However, if all this is confused by the "language/langue-langage"
lack of IETF/ISO TC37 differentiation, this is further complexified
(as in IDNs) by the fact that Internet technology has no
"presentation" layer. This is perceived as an advantage for
e-commerce and e-political English lobbies, because it leads
everything to be specified, supported, and operated in ASCII and the
entire network to be possibly unified under IANA and ICANN. This is
in fact highly detrimental because it prevents the Internet from
supporting our (each human being and organisation) lingual,
cultural, local, family, private, corporate, etc. visions
("presentations"). This is partly, resulting in most of the
architectural problems that we now face. Not only with IDNs, but
also with IPv6, routing, governance, etc.
This is in fact a "layer violation" (you do something at the wrong
place, which then quickly prevents scalability). Languages, as in
IDNs, like in the RFC 4647 filtering approach, etc. are considered
as options that are being supported atop the English background. The
result is that roughly 150 locale files for 130 languages (some have
two scripts) are supported today, while the ISO 639-3 that IETF
wants to support documents 7,500 languages. Debbie's ISO 639-6
project targets 20/30,000 language "archeological" entities (they
will be long dead when it is accurate!), while new languages appear every day.
7. The correct approach
Whatever the solution, it can only be based on sound premises. This
demands the acceptance that there is a layer violation on the
Internet side and confusion on the ISO side. The necessary technical
culture is progressing. For example, in chronological order:
I tricked the IETF in producing an interoperable RFC 4646 text (to
support its language doctrine) that is clear enough to be
interoperable. John Klensin proposed to remove the linguistic
aspects from the IDNA and keep them purely script oriented. the
metacoms concept (transporting information about the content and
meaning of information) advances slowly through:
* the Semantic Web concepts,
* the possible IETF OPES,
* the JTC1/SC32/WG2 work on metadata registries, etc.
* my pending proposal
However, we are so embedded in the IETF "English", "decentralized",
and "end to end" paradigm that there is some difficulty in
understanding that many of the Internet poblems result from there
specifically: the differences between the way we perceive reality
and the model of virtuality that a limited Internet imposes on us.
The response of the GA of the Internet DNS users should be to
complain about the fact that the ISO, IETF, UNICODE, etc. have not
yet made it possible to have universal pervasive multilingal
Internet support, in turn making the problem obsolete. Amazingly,
that complain was absent from the debate. Instead they discussed
costs, treeshold computation for HR enforcement, marketing.
This only shows that their assembly do not represent the users and
explain why China adopted a grassroots independent strategy,
development, and deployment.
jfc
At 14:01 17/07/2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
Language is important to the people that speak it. It is part of
their cultural heritage. Whilst English is recognised as a lingua
franca around the world it is important that policies are put into
place to protect "small" languages. According to a well known
linguist, 3000 of the recorded 6-7,000 languages (Ethnologue/ISO
639-3 lists 7,200) currently alive will die within 100 years.
http://www.crystalreference.com/DC_articles/Langdeath19.pdf
Who cares? Not governments that's for sure because there are very
little or no funds for language documentation or language
revival. Not industry because it doesn't make economic sense -
http://www.native-languages.org/linguistics.htm#tree. I have tried
for 6 years to get people interested enough to fund language
documentation -it is a thankless task (one of my many). The only
people interested are linguists and the speakers themselves.
Bringing the topic of conversation back in line with the objectives
of this forum, should we translate the NARALO MoU into
Inuit/Inuktitut* and Cree** and other native languages? Answer,
yes we should. Does it make economic sense? Answer, sadly
no. Very often, and certainly in this case, the translation of
documents is about getting information to the most people possible
and this does not mean translating into languages that represent
the mother tongue of less than 1% of the population albeit 100% of
the indigenous population; especially where these people have
knowledge of a second language - in this case English and
French. Sad but true.
Best
Debbie PS Anyone interested in language documentation or language
protection/revival may make large donations to The World Language
Documentation Centre www.thewldc.org I happen to be CEO :-)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_language **
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree_language
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [
mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano >
Sent: 16 July 2007 22:37 > To: 'Jaap Akkerhuis';
ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; martin.boyle@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [ga]
Aviation languages > > Jaap, > > > > > As far as I know
English is mandatory. > > > > It is. And there is a protocol to
switch to another > languages in case > > the parties
desire. > > > > For more details, google for "aviation languages"
and similar terms. > > > <maybe off topic, or just
borderline...> > > With all due respect, I made the statement
about languages > not because I *thought*, but because I *know*
from personal > experience that Italian can rightfully be used
under certain > circumstances by pilots while flying over the
italian air > space. Specifically, the use of italian is lawful
for all VFR > flights, that are still the vast majority of the
flights > where amateur pilots engage. And since it is the pilot
who > initiates the conversation, for instance with the control >
tower when still in parking position, there is no protocol >
needed: he/she chooses the language. > Please have a look at the
document of the National (Italian) > Authority for Civil
Aviation: >
http://www.enac-italia.it/documents/download/nor/Reg-Regole_Ar >
ia.pdf. This is updated as of 2006-10-03, and has clear text > on
paragraph 3.10 (in italian). > Incidentally, this text is similar
to the one used in > different countries, simply because it is
taken from the > Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil
Aviation, > issued by ICAO. > > I do acknowledge that English is,
and will remain for the > foreseeable future, *the* language used
in international > situations (like this list, for instance). But
also that > there are local situations (that also are here to stay
for a > while) where communication is done using local languages.
I > know that opinions vary about to which extent an >
international (common) language should be used vs. a national >
(local) language. Dutch and French, to quote an example....
;>) > > Best regards, > Roberto > > > >
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|