The Library of Congress is very closely involved with ISO 639-2.
In fact, it is mostly their list of codes.
Misha
> Oh Michael...
>
> > I think there are codes given to entities in the Ethnologue list that
> > aren't languages in the sense that we need to identify languages in IT
> > and in Bibliography
>
> ISO 639, and every other "standard" for language/locale codes also has this problem,
>and from what I remember of the last old version of Ethnologue that I looked at in
>great detail... the Ethnologue database has them in smaller quantity than other
>standards.
>
> > I don't see what the hurry is.
>
> Can you say "Library of Congresss"?
>
> One of the arguments that representatives of the U. S. Government keep making to
>people who attend their shows at the IUC conferences each year... is that nobody
>knows where the next earthquake, flood, war, famine, bomb, or other disaster, be it
>political or natural, is going to occur. And when there is an "incident", language
>data and translations and many things are needed IMMEDIATELY, not in ten years or
>more when ISO wakes up.
>
> One of the major PROBLEMS with ISO 639, and other such lists developed by ISO over
>the years, is that they are not brought into being, or maintained, with the intent of
>being comprehensive. They are either intended to, or do serve, some short-term
>narrow interests.
>
> Governments, libraries, and businesses throughout the world have needed a
>comprehensive language and locale identification system for many years. ISO has not
>provided it. One place to start is with a comprehensive list of "languages" --
>however you define that; and please define it at least with fair consistency. The
>Ethnologue is a place to start.
>
> Can anyone point me to an existing list of languages that is more comprehensive and
>better researched than the Ethnologue? If there is no such list, then we don't need
>to consider any alternatives, right?
>
> Rick
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
