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. cheers stuart > 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 7.12.1.3, which points to the MARC language code > list for terms rather than codes: > <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp7&target=lcps7-145#lcps7-145>