Re: [geolang-comment] Quo vadis, GeoLang?

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:


> Since then, however, a number of people now about to join the TC have
> suggested other code sets that should also be covered. The point of
> this discussion is basically to reach agreement on what we want to
> do. Personally I believe that we should let history be history and do
> whatever the community has the most use for.

I agree, and I propose that we cover the following codesets:

RFC 3066 language codes (which are a superset/refinement of
ISO 639-2, and are now the standard for xml:lang attributes).
This is an IETF/IANA facility; although these are not technically
standards bodies, they operate as such de facto, maintaining
the canonical descriptions of core Internet facilities.

UN/LOCODE, an extension of ISO 3166-2 for cities (particularly
port cities), airports, and other notable locations.
This is maintained by the United Nations.

The final maps would support languages (including national
variations) and important dialects, regions of the world, countries
and country-like entities, subdivisions of countries, and commercially
important locations.  I estimate the resulting total map size to be
on the order of 100,000 topics (almost all automatically derived from
the underlying codesets, so not as frightening as it sounds).

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_