> Version: Sat Feb 25 14:36:16 WEST 2006
> HTML version: http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/log/2006-02-23.ub-telecon-report.txt.html
> 
>               Usage Board telecon - report
>               2006-02-23 Thu 1400 UTC
...
> 5. Changes to DCMES property definitions (and dc:date comment) (Tom, Andy)
>    http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.definitions/term-changes/
> 
>    ACTION Andrew 2006-02-23: Will through definitions text carefully.
>    -- Check against what we decided in Madrid:
>       http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.definitions/2005-09-10.meeting-notes-excerpts.html
>    -- Need to integrate details of problems being fixed into each proposed change.
>       Refine the language used in the DCMES term changes
>       document (to include rationale for changes).  See also:
>       http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.definitions/2005-09-21.diane-context-for-changes.txt
...
> 10. New issue - dc:language (see list discussion)
>     http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0602&L=dc-usage&P=601
>     Is RFC 3066 dated in its approach to 2- and 3-letter language codes?
>     The comment should dc:language should potentially be revised.

Andrew,

As long as you are checking and editing the proposed changes to
DC-15 properties, would you (or anyone else) like to suggest a
position on the 2- and 3-letter language codes?  As it stands,
the draft change comment [1] does not explicitly take a stand
in this regard.

Personally, I am inclined to support the 3-letter approach
[2] if we see is a clear preference for it.  However, it is
worth recalling that the wording used in the draft changes [1]
was originally a response to a comment last March that the
wording currently in force uses the three-letter code "eng"
[3] and is therefore out of line with the RFC guidelines.
If we now want to consider recommending something else, the
argument would need to be made and documented.  Would anyone
like to volunteer?

I'm wondering whether this issue is too big simply to fold
into the current batch of proposed changes [1] and whether
we need to discuss it in Seattle.  Opinions on this please?

Tom

[1] http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.definitions/term-changes/
[2] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0602&L=dc-usage&P=601
[3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#language

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                                 [log in to unmask]
Director, Specifications and Documentation
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative