On 07/01/2014 05:41 AM, Mark K. Ehlert wrote:
Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
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 220.127.116.11, which points to the MARC language code
list for terms rather than codes: