On 07/01/2014 05:41 AM, Mark K. Ehlert wrote:
> Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
>     My biggest issue (that's not covered in the doc, but which I've
>     already fed to the doc's authors) is that BIBFRAME mandates
>     three-letter language codes, where available, while core RDA
>     mandates two-letter language codes, where available.

Sorry, there are at least two separate errors in that.

Correction: Every example I've ever seen using BIBFRAME and language 
codes uses three-letter codes without any discussion of the 
interoperability implications with every other thing in the RDF universe 
that I've seen that uses two letter codes.


> To my knowledge, RDA has no such instruction.  There is RDA 7.13.2
> (Script), where we're told to "expression the language content of the
> resource using one or more of the terms from ISO 15924..." (mentioned
> also under 0.12).
> There's also LC-PCC PS, which points to the MARC language code
> list for terms rather than codes:
> <>