From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Mon Sep 13 16:03:08 2004 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo@ghz.klid.dk Received: by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix, from userid 521) id BE05037647; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:03:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66]) by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id E900F37638 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:03:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from balin.rl.ac.uk (balin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.155]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i8DE0xjH038749 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:01:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) X-RAL-MFrom: X-RAL-Connect: Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by balin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i8DE41rF012411; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:04:02 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i8DE3T87029029; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:03:29 +0100 Message-ID: <4145A8B0.6010601@rl.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:03:28 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3161) Resolutions from SC22 plenary meeting References: <200409091804.i89I4Q2E029101@math.jpl.nasa.gov> <20040910154605.23C2D37646@ghz.klid.dk> <20040913111608.101D937643@ghz.klid.dk> In-Reply-To: <20040913111608.101D937643@ghz.klid.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk David Muxworthy wrote: > On Sep 10, 2004, at 16:28, Richard E Maine wrote: > >> Resolution 04-01 a bit puzzled me in its application to us, but I >> guess we'll >> see more after taking a look at N3784. ...It is hard for me to tell >> exactly what they >> want from the resolution alone; might turn out to be nothing from us. > > > As Roger Scowen says in N3784, ISO/IEC 2382-15:1999 Information > technology -- Vocabulary -- Part 15: Programming languages, and its > previous incarnations, were produced independently of SC22. Roger is > being diplomatic when he says, "The reaction [in SC22 to requests to > review the CDs] was largely apathetic but with a small amount of disdain > and derision". I seem to remember that in BSI they were treated with > groans and laughter at some of the grossly misleading definitions. > > Nevertheless a standard for terminology was seen as having some value > particularly for non-native English speakers. Roger seems to have done > a huge amount of tedious clerical work in pulling together terms from 12 > language standards and miscellaneous other documents. I suggest the > best way to respond to the SC22 resolution is first to ask him exactly > what information, and what level of detail, he would like on Fortran. Roger has taken a completely different approach to the earlier work. He has simply looked at a few standards and made a spreadsheet of their definitions. This will allow us, when making a future revision and needing a new term, to see how other languages have used our candidate word. I see this as useful. At the moment, his spreadsheet just provides a reference, not the text itself. He wants to add text. For Fortran, Roger simply used an old glossary, and I think all we need do now is send him the Latex of the F2003 glossary so that he has the definitions. He does not want us to do a huge amount of work, for example, extracting all the bold definitions in the text. Unless anyone has any objections, I will send him the Latex or its web address. Cheers, John.