[tdwg-tapir] tapir metadata issues

[D ö ring, Markus]

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

http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langhome.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#language
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt



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.
> 
> Wouter
> 
> 
> ----- 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
>> less.
>> I would vote for option #1
>> 
>> Markus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> or
>>> 
>>> 2) Include dc:language elements inside a new element with an attribute
>>> indicating the standard being used, such as:
>>> 
>>> <contentLanguages standard="ethnologue">
>>>   <dc:language>aaa</dc:language>
>>>   <dc:language>aab</dc:language>
>>> </contentLanguages>
>>> 
>>> Where "standard" could be an extensible controlled vocabulary.
>>> 
>>> or
>>> 
>>> 3) Extend the dc:language type so that it accepts a similar "standard"
>>> attribute.
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> inclined
>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Renato
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tdwg-tapir mailing list
>>> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-tapir mailing list
>> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir