LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for METS Archives


METS Archives

METS Archives


METS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

METS Home

METS Home

METS  June 2002

METS June 2002

Subject:

Re: Text Tech Metadata

From:

Jerome McDonough <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:49:29 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (68 lines)

At 12:36 PM 6/5/2002 -0400, Bartek Plichta wrote:

>This is in response to the question about the languages listed in the Text
>Tech Schema. While ISO 639-2 seems to be a good choice for a set of standard
>language codes, I would like to alert the METS community to the possibility
>of using the Ethnologue set of language codes (http://www.ethnologue.com),
>not as a replacement, but rather as an alternative (via mapping) to ISO
>693-2

I did consider using Ethnologue instead of ISO 639-2.  It is obviously more
extensive
and fine-grained.  It's license terms are also reasonable (basically 'free,
but please give
us credit').  There is the argument to be made that 'It's good, but it's
not a *standard*'
but I'm not horribly concerned about that.

Ultimately, what brought me down on the side of ISO 639-2 was the thought
that the level of detail provided by Ethnologue, while useful for
linguists, is
probably overkill for a technical metadata set.  Technical reasons for wanting
to know a language include wanting to know what rules should be used in
rendering it for display, what fonts/scripts to use in rendering it, what
indexing
and stemming algorithms are appropriate in enabling retrieval, etc.  Many of
the distinctions Ethnologue makes are not particularly relevent at this
level.  Moreover,
if we insist on Ethnologue, we also insist on people having the expertise
on hand to make
the fine-grained distinctions between languages accurately.  To some degree,
that presents a fairly high knowledge-barrier to its use.

I considered the alternative of not specifying a particular set of language
codes,
and allowing people to indicate what codeset they were using, e.g.
<language code="JER" name="Jere" codesource="Ethnologue"/> and
perhaps limiting the allowable codesource values to Ethnologue and ISO 639-2
(we could debate the inevitable desire to have 'other' as
yet-another-codesource value).
But I decided there was something to be said in this case for trying to
press for
universal agreement on a particular codeset to use for this purpose.  That is
obviously a debatable choice and I would be interested in hearing people's
thoughts.

>I also think it might be worthwhile adding another language element to the
>schema. This would provide a way to capture the distinction between the
>language of the resource (e.g., 'language') and the language that the
>resource describes (e.g., 'subject.language'), unless, of course, the schema
>can already handle that. An example of that could a Fulfulde-French
>dictionary, where the alternative name "Pulaar" is preferred (using
>Ethnologue codes):

I can see the importance of having that kind of information, but it really
strikes
me as descriptive metadata, and not technical.




Jerome McDonough
Digital Library Development Team Leader
Elmer Bobst Library, New York University
70 Washington Square South, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10012
[log in to unmask]
(212) 998-2425

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
January 2016
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager