After doing some searching of the OCLC WorldCat database, I can say that my experience matches Millie's. Most of the records with roh are for items in Romansh with fewer than 20 that appear to be Ladin. So, I agree that Peter's suggestion that rm/roh be treated as the identifier for Romansh seems reasonable. --Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Milicent K Wewerka [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:44 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [ISOJAC] Rhaeto-Romance To: ISO-JAC From: Milicent Wewerka, Library of Congress Peter Constable asked for comment on the usage of the language code for Rhaeto-Romance. I checked past usage for the MARC Code List for Languages. It is clear from past editions that the MARC usage for [roh] was intended to cover both Ladin and Romansh as well as Friulian before it had its own identifier. I checked records in the Library of Congress database and find that most of the record with [roh] are actually Romansh, although there are also some Ladin texts. If we consider past practice only, then it would be better from the library standpoint to keep [roh] as a more comprehensive identifier. However, it is possible that we may at some future time wish to implement a separate identifier for Ladin in ISO639-2. In that case [roh] would be a collective designation containing only one language, a situation that seems undesirable. I think Peter's recommendation that [rm/roh] be treated as the identifier for Romansh is an acceptable solution. For MARC usage, this would mean that Ladin would fall into the category of "Romance (Other)." I would like to hear the views of others on this, especially those who are active in the library community. By the way, I found that the term "ladin" was also used to refer to Romansh and Friulian.