Re: [geolang-comment] ISSUE 3: The "language" published subject

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Steve Pepper scripsit:

> Like you said: Nobody *has* to use the language PSI we provide if they 
> don't want to... unless of course we publish the PSI set in a formal 
> notation (such as XTM or RDF) and make the assertion for each subject that 
> it is an instance of the class "language", and I don't think we should do that.

Since the standard explicitly recognizes the difference between language
codes and language group codes, and has instances of both (i.e. the
code "NAI" means "North American Indian languages" and is a group),
I think we need topics for "language" and "language group" and assert
that each coded entity is an instance of one of the two classes.

-- 
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_