Talk:Linguistic Literature GEO Search

From MPDLMediaWiki
Revision as of 13:59, 3 August 2011 by Kristina (talk | contribs) (→‎CoNE extension)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Table with geographical coordinates for all ISO 639-3 codes[edit]

This table consists of the following columns:

  • NAME_OLD: nur ein String zur identifikation, kan ignoriert werden
  • NAME_NEW: ich weiß nicht, was der Unterschied zu NAME_OLD ist
  • ETHNOLOGUE: der alte drei-Buchstaben code des Ethnologue, in Kapitalen
  • ISO 639-3: die neuene ISO codes, hier scheinen ein par zu Fehlen
  • LAT: latitude
  • LONG: longitude

==> Michael Cysouw hat die Tabelle im Mai 2010 noch mal überarbeitet, aktuelle Version : File:Geo cleaned noduplicates2010-05-25.txt


  • Are all ISO 639-3 codes available?
    Ahould be checked automatically as the table consists of more than 7000 codes.
  • What is going on if ISO 639-3 fields are missing in this table?
    MPI Library EVA or Michael Cysouw will hand in the missing codes later.

CoNE extension[edit]

Just a note: like some of the other data sets already in cone, iso-639-3 is also not a static resource, i.e. code points can (and do) change. the same is true for the coordinates, and in this case even worse, because there is no defined change process associated with it. anyway, when we do put more and more data like this in cone, we'd have to come up with a concept of how to maintain this data.--Robert 11:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As of next CoNE (and PubMan) version - CoNE allows vocabulary moderation and editing for particular users. What is usually done in such cases: ISO-639-3 vocabulary is static to CoNE in sense that these are modified when official iso-639-3 vocabulary is modified. Geo Codes will be additional vocabulary (related to ISO-639-3) but fully owned by LDH Administrator for example. In this case LDH Administrator only modifies LDH specific data - and not ISO-639-3 vocabulary data. --Natasa 12:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm less concerned about the technical feasibility of vocabulary maintenance than about who is actually going to do it.--Robert 12:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)