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

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
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
March 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
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 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
July 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager