LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


MODS@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

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  January 2005

MODS January 2005

Subject:

Language coding (WAS Re: [MODS] New MADS draft, January 13)

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:26:30 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (128 lines)

No it's not exactly the case that the lang attribute is redundant. What
RFC 3066 says is that if the language has an ISO 639-1 code (i.e.
2-character code), use it. If it doesn't, use another code from the larger
set of ISO 639-2. So what that means is that using xml:lang, German is
coded as "de" and Aramaic (which has no 2-character code) is coded as
"arc". But in MARC and ISO 639-2B, German is coded as "ger" and Aramaic is
(still) "arc".

As I said, MODS needs to support the codes used for 30+ years in the
bibliographic world. There's no reason why it can't handle both. Here is
one of several messages that I mentioned was sent out to the list in
Dec. 2002 on this issue. We had a full discussion of this issue at that
time (see below).

Rebecca

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Andrew E Switala wrote:

> That's what I originally thought, i.e. ISO 639-2 codes more languages
> than RFC 3066. But the part of RFC 3066 I quoted indicates that it
> supports ISO 639-2 (second bullet point below). So the even for purposes
> of MARC compatibility, the lang attribute is redundant and all
> occurences of it can be replaced by xml:lang.
>
> --Andy
>

Message from Dec. 2002:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:48:46 -0800
From:         Rick Beaubien
Subject:      Re: FW: [MODS] language: comments please (fwd)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager