[tdwg-tapir] tapir metadata issues
wouter at eti.uva.nl
Wed Jul 4 12:33:37 CEST 2007
I think it may not be enough. ISO 639-2 (3 letter codes) lists about 500
languages if I am right. Ethnologue about 7000. The data can be in any
language or dialect, especially common names or herbal information. The
ethnologue 3-letter code list has the advantage of having a link between
languages and countries, although the iso countries list they use is not
completely up to date. Usually I prefer ISO standards, but in this case I am
----- Original Message -----
From: "Döring, Markus" <m.doering at BGBM.org>
To: "Wouter Addink" <wouter at eti.uva.nl>; <tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tapir] tapir metadata issues
Isn't rfc3066 as used by xml schema enough?
Any arguments against it?
RFC3066 specifies the primary language to be ISO 639-2.
The Library of Congress, maintainers of ISO 639-2, has made the list of
languages registered available on the Internet. It can be found at
Am 04.07.2007 10:28 Uhr schrieb "Wouter Addink" unter <wouter at eti.uva.nl>:
> If we are confident we have a standard that suits all, I have nothing
> against it.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Döring, Markus" <m.doering at BGBM.org>
> To: "Renato De Giovanni" <renato at cria.org.br>; <tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 9:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-tapir] tapir metadata issues
>> I cant see why we shouldnt mandate one specific standard. One variable
>> I would vote for option #1
>> Am 03.07.2007 3:55 Uhr schrieb "Renato De Giovanni" unter
>> <renato at cria.org.br>:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I see the following alternatives to the language issue:
>>> 1) Indicate through the specification one particular standard to be used
>>> by dc:language.
>>> 2) Include dc:language elements inside a new element with an attribute
>>> indicating the standard being used, such as:
>>> <contentLanguages standard="ethnologue">
>>> Where "standard" could be an extensible controlled vocabulary.
>>> 3) Extend the dc:language type so that it accepts a similar "standard"
>>> Are there other alternatives we should consider?
>>> I think the requirements are that:
>>> * Language can be optional.
>>> * There can be multiple languages.
>>> * We must somehow know what is the standard used for the language.
>>> I don't think it would be necessary to allow multiple language elements
>>> where each one could be potentially related to different standards.
>>> I don't have strong feelings about this, although I would be more
>>> to choose option 2. Option 1 would bring less impact to existing
>>> implementations and installations, but we would need to be sure that the
>>> standard we choose would really cover all needs.
>>> What do you think?
>>> tdwg-tapir mailing list
>>> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
>> tdwg-tapir mailing list
>> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-tag