You're right, Mark--I can see that I need to elaborate my views a little.
I think that MODS definitely needs to support ISO639-2b because the 3
character codes it represents have been used in libraries for so
long. This support is essential. In the interests of flexibility, I think
a strong argument can be made for supporting RFC3066 in a manner such as is
already provided for in the MODS language element. MODS already has enough
flexibility that I don't think that "interoperability" can simply be
assumed anyway. Whatever decision is finally made, however, I think that
the provisions of the language element and the provisions of any language
attribute should be consistent and well-aligned.
Rick
At 12:39 PM 12/11/2002 -0600, Mark Needleman wrote:
>Rick
>
>this certainly solves the problem from an xml point of view in an elegant
>way - but Im not sure it deals with Rebecca's underlying issue (which if Im
>interpeting it correctly) is asking whether or not MODS should allow both 2
>and 3 letter codes or somehow try to mandate something more restrictive (and
>thus more interoperable) - if it is decided that both the 2 and 3 letter
>codes need to be there it would be nice to be able to have the distinction
>clearly defined in the xml
>
>
>Mark H Needleman
>Sirsi Corporation
>Product Manager - Standards
>1276 North Warson Road
>P.O. Box 8495
>St Louis, MO 63132-1806
>USA
>
>Phone: 800 325-0888 (US/Canada)
> 314 432-1100 x318
>Fax: 314 993-8927
>
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:34:40 -0800
>From: Rick Beaubien <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [MODS] language: comments please
>
>Given that the MODS language element supports both ISO 639-2 and RFC3066, I
>feel that any provision for language attributes should as well, just for
>the sake of consistency. However, to make the authority explicit and to
>avoid having two parallel language attributes to contain the language
>value, you might want to consider defining a language attribute group that
>included both a LANG and LANGTYPE attributes along the lines of the
>following:
>
><xsd:attributeGroup name="LANGUAGE">
> <xsd:attribute name="LANG" type="xsd:string"
>use="optional"/>
> <xsd:attribute name="LANGTYPE" use="optional">
> <xsd:simpleType>
> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
> <xsd:enumeration value="RFC3066"/>
> <xsd:enumeration
>value="ISO639-2b"/>
> </xsd:restriction>
> </xsd:simpleType>
> </xsd:attribute>
> </xsd:attributeGroup>
>
>Such handling would, I think, be most consistent with the current language
>element.
>
>Rick Beaubien
-----------------------------------------------------
Rick Beaubien
Lead Software Engineer: Research and Development
Library Systems Office
Rm 386 Doe Library
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-6000
510-643-9776
|