Re: [geolang-comment] National and official languages (was: Quo vadis,GeoLang?)

[Murray Altheim <m.altheim@open.ac.uk>]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> | 
> | Having covered ISO 639 it should be really easy to cover RFC 3066,
> | and I think the value of RFC 3066 is great enough to justify doing
> | it.
> 
> * John Cowan
> | 
> | Good.  I am also in the process of getting review for a list of 225
> | MORE (you've seen 56%):
> | "national or official language" codes: these are things like fr-FR,
> | en-US, de-AT, and so on.  These are allowed by both ISO 639 and RFC 3066,
> | but in principle anything can be used, even oddities like en-DE,
> | fr-RU, and nv-AU.
> 
> That's very good. I've felt it was a weakness of RFC 3066 that many
> people were using codes of this form which were not in the registry.
> This would solve that problem.
>  
> | If anyone wants to review the list, 
> 
> I would like to, but time pressure forces me to decline. I'm going to
> find it difficult to do all the stuff I absolutely must do as it is.


John,

If you send me the "final" set of codes you have for this I can probably
re-process them back into LTM for re-creation of the topic maps. I'm
not sure if I still have the sed scripts but I've done this enough times
it's probably not too difficult to do it again. Unless someone else
wants to jump headfirst into this...

My take on this is that either in LTM or XTM we can merge these
various code bases using the merge functionality of topic maps,
when the explicit codebase-to-codebase mapping is already
available (as it is in some sets like MARC).


Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                         <mailto:m.altheim @ open.ac.uk>
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu