On 07/01/2014 05:41 AM, Mark K. Ehlert wrote:
> Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> My biggest issue (that's not covered in the doc, but which I've
> already fed to the doc's authors) is that BIBFRAME mandates
> three-letter language codes, where available, while core RDA
> mandates two-letter language codes, where available.
Sorry, there are at least two separate errors in that.
Correction: Every example I've ever seen using BIBFRAME and language
codes uses three-letter codes without any discussion of the
interoperability implications with every other thing in the RDF universe
that I've seen that uses two letter codes.
> To my knowledge, RDA has no such instruction. There is RDA 7.13.2
> (Script), where we're told to "expression the language content of the
> resource using one or more of the terms from ISO 15924..." (mentioned
> also under 0.12).
> There's also LC-PCC PS 184.108.40.206, which points to the MARC language code
> list for terms rather than codes: