Print

Print


Yes, I understand that this is an issue. The solution has to do with
implementation.

And PLEASE remember: ISO 639 (both parts) are !!!NOT!!! solely for library
use: It should be sufficient to document that there is a need within other
application areas. Within terminology there clearly is a need. Within
software localization there clearly is a need. Within SOME libraries I would
expect that there is a need (I am not at all familiar with the "library
world").

Best regards,
Håvard

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Håvard Hjulstad           mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Rådet for teknisk terminologi
  (Norwegian Council for Technical Terminology)
  Postboks 41 Blindern
  NO-0313  Oslo, Norway
  (besøksadresse/visiting address: Forskningsveien 3 B)
  tel: +47-23198040   faks: +47-23198041
  http://www.rtt.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Marg [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 2:59 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Norwegian
> 
> Just a note to echo the other comments from the bibliographic side --
> Canadian libraries would also not likely require the distinction.
> Although
> I agree that this is an implementation issue which we will need to
> address,
> the existence of the three codes does add a certain level of complexity
> when
> we are dealing  with international bibliographic record exchange.     
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Margaret
> 
> Margaret Stewart
> Chief, Standards and Support / Chef, Normes et soutien
> National Library of Canada / Bibliothèque nationale du Canada
> tele.: (819) 994-6900  fax: (819) 953-0291
> email: [log in to unmask]