Inconsistency with ISO-639-2 language codes (bibliographic "dut" vs terminologic "nld")?
Hi all, Can you please help us to understand if ISO-639-2 bibliographic or terminologic codes are preferred? According to page 94 of BMEcat 5 guideline, we should use terminologic codes (i.e. "nld"). P. 17 of BMEcat 5 guideline shows an example for the header. It uses "dut". So, what is preferred? "dut" (bibligraphic code) or "nld" (terminologic code)? Also, why does the xsd allow for both? Would be great if you can let us know. Thanks very much! BR Nico
Hi Nico, great question! The first time I heard about bibliographic versus terminological codes 😊. This is original BMEcat, not something we control. So the general BMEcat allows all ISO 639-2 codes, both the bibliographic and terminological codes, therefore both must also part of the XSD of ETIM BMEcat, else we wouild not longer be compliant with the basic BMEcat. If both are allowed, we can't give a preference. Common practice would suggest that codes like "deu" and "dut" are used, but if you look at the ISO list (deu/ger versus nld/dut), then "deu" is the bibliographic code and "dut" is the terminological code. For our new standard in development I will make a note that we avoid double codes, but for BMEcat I am afraid it is just the way it is.
Join the conversation
|Topic started||07 March 2022 at 15:43|
Share topic via: