Print

Print


I guess it depends on how important it is to align with MARC records.  After all, a code is just a means to an end, and it’s a direct translation from bibliographic codes to terminological codes in ISO 639-2, so using ISO 639-3 has some appeal as a long-term solution.  On the other hand, there are URIs for the 639-2 codes at id.loc.gov, but I can’t find URIs for 639-3 codes at its registration authority https://iso639-3.sil.org/

John



From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michelle Futornick
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 17:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] ISO 639-2 or 639-3?

Thanks for the additional details. What would be a better solution? To be able to choose from a list that has both sets?
Michelle

________________________________
From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:16:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] ISO 639-2 or 639-3?

It's a little more complicated than that.  ISO 639-2 includes codes for language groups that are not in 639-3, which has codes for individual languages covered by those groups.  Also, 639-2 includes two codes for about 20 languages, one for "bibliographic" use (e.g. ger for German) and one for "terminological" use (e.g. deu).  The B codes are basically there for MARC records.  ISO 639-3 includes only the T codes.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]<../../owa/redir.aspx?C=fff0248a4daa423caadeb2f835259a11&URL=mailto%3ahostage%40law.harvard.edu>
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

________________________________
From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 16:02
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] ISO 639-2 or 639-3?


My understanding is that 639-2 is actually a subset of 639-3.  If that’s so, then there’s nothing lost by going to 639-3.

-NancyF



From: Nancy Lorimer <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] ISO 639-2 or 639-3?



Stanford votes for 639-3



Nancy

Sent from my iPhone



On Nov 19, 2019, at 11:05 AM, Jesse Lambertson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:



For us, I believe the interest is toward 639-3



Thank you



From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michelle Futornick
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:24
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] ISO 639-2 or 639-3?



Thanks for continuing this discussion.



If the literal-language selection in Sinopia just offered ISO 639-3, would that be okay with everyone? Does anyone need to use ISO 639-2 specifically?



Michelle







________________________________

From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Paul Robert Burley <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] ISO 639-2 or 639-3?



I brought it up during the meeting. It’s not just about granularity, it’s about accurately describing the materials in hand.



The sooner we move away from ISO 639-2 designations like “Afroasiatic (Other)”, “South American Indian (Other)”, “Bamileke languages”,  and use ISO 639-3, the better.



(Thanks for bringing up the use of the 041 + ISO 639-3 in the MARC environment.)



Thanks,

Paul



From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Riley, Charles
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] ISO 639-2 or 639-3?



I would be strongly in favor of ISO 639-3.  It has only been allowable in MARC records for the past decade or so, but makes a huge difference in granularity, and is consistent with W3C recommendations on internationalization through BCP47.  There are some considerations to implementation that would need to be worked out: typeahead would probably work better than a straight drop-down list.  The field used in MARC for ISO 639-3 is the 041, as opposed to the fixed field in the 008 that typically drives facets.

Charles Riley

Get Outlook for Android<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_ghei36&d=DwMF-g&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=Jq3Z6w_3cRBHcVT0QaMPZ-oK_O-vhINdnzrdJOAMJXs&m=OhX8Xywg3Nj1aAtOUHtDQDhzSQMrbGtyQGpdl-iKVPo&s=1UfJyNcYulgsU41UiJtWjCYT-_rQyd3AWRbJoBbff7E&e=>



________________________________

From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Jesse Lambertson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:00:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: [PCC-LD4P2] ISO 639-2 or 639-3?



Good morning everyone (happy Tuesday)



We were talking yesterday after the Sinopia User Group Meeting about ISO 639-2 vs 639-3



I believe we have been currently using 639-2, as it relates to the MARC language code list. https://www.loc.gov/marc/languages/introduction.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.loc.gov-252Fmarc-252Flanguages-252Fintroduction.pdf-26data-3D02-257C01-257Ccharles.riley-2540yale.edu-257Cf5cf4f0a8701453f3dd908d76d013fca-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C1-257C637097724450711870-26sdata-3DDumg50LdKrxk0gKm9OOlKgkPOG1PiKgEf2bTztiV2IA-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=Jq3Z6w_3cRBHcVT0QaMPZ-oK_O-vhINdnzrdJOAMJXs&m=OhX8Xywg3Nj1aAtOUHtDQDhzSQMrbGtyQGpdl-iKVPo&s=gse7XV1IaqhNzKk63IWMfVl2NEMURbkx_yrUT_B17i8&e=>



We suggested to ourselves in the linked data environment, it would be best to use 639-3 instead of 639-2 because it would open up the whole code list for us.

What is the general thinking on this?

Are we going to carry over use of 639-2 from its relation to MARC – or will we use this as an opportunity to move to an all-new schema?



What do folks think?



Thank you



Jesse A Lambertson

Metadata / Digital Resources Librarian

University of Chicago – D’Angelo Law Library

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

ph: 773-702-9620