Wrong language code in mandatory/subtag_registry.sql for Slovak. Value 'slk' → 'slo' in table language_rfc4646_to_iso639, key 'sk'. OLD: INSERT INTO language_rfc4646_to_iso639(rfc4646_subtag,iso639_2_code) VALUES ( 'sk','slk'); NEW: INSERT INTO language_rfc4646_to_iso639(rfc4646_subtag,iso639_2_code) VALUES ( 'sk','slo');
Hola Petr, Can you provide a patch please? https://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Submitting_A_Patch
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #1) > Hola Petr, Can you provide a patch please? > > https://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Submitting_A_Patch Sorry, I can't make patch.
Created attachment 72542 [details] [review] Bug 20245: Wrong language code for Slovak This patch only updates iso639_2_code value for Slovak language Test plan: 1) Obtain a biblio record having 'slo' value in its language code (marc field 041a) 2) Try to find it through Advanced search + more options with language set to Slovak 3) Nothing is found 4) Apply this patch 5) Repeat steps 1 and 2 6) Record is found now
I just ran through all the codes we have in the installer/data/mysql/en/mandatory/subtag_registry.sql Looking at https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php I noticed that the following use either Bibliographic or Terminology codes. This patch turns slk to slo (T)->(B). So the question I have is: should not all the codes be Bibliographic? cze - B ger - B gre - B eus - T per - B fre - B arm - B ice - B geo - B mri - T may - B dut - B pbr - is ISO 639-3 code, not 639-2 code! prs - is ISO 639-3 code, not 639-2 code! rum - B slk - T -- see bug 20245 sqi - T chi - B
Hi Mark, can you explain the difference? Anyway, I think this should go on a separate bug if this one is ok to go in. I've usually checked: http://www.loc.gov/marc/languages/
If these codes are going to be used to match the language codes in field 041 or 008/35-37, then these need to be the bibliographic type. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639-2#B_and_T_codes
Based on reading from links given, I found this particular excerpt useful: "RELATIONSHIP TO ISO 639-2 ISO 639-2 (Codes for the representation of names of languages-- Part 2: alpha-3 code) was based on the MARC Code List for Languages and published in 1998. In the 22 cases where the ISO 639-2 list has two alternative codes, the bibliographic code is the same as the MARC code." (http://www.loc.gov/marc/languages/introduction.pdf) As such, I'm leaning towards they should all be Bibliographic. So, I'm going to sign this off. However, we should fix the others too.
Created attachment 73360 [details] [review] Bug 20245: Wrong language code for Slovak This patch updates iso639_2_code value for Slovak language Test plan: 1) Obtain a biblio record having 'slo' value in its language code (marc field 041a) 2) Try to find it through Advanced search + more options with language set to Slovak 3) Nothing is found 4) Apply this patch 5) Repeat steps 1 and 2 6) Record is found now Signed-off-by: Mark Tompsett <mtompset@hotmail.com>
Created attachment 73754 [details] [review] Bug 20245: Wrong language code for Slovak This patch updates iso639_2_code value for Slovak language Test plan: 1) Obtain a biblio record having 'slo' value in its language code (marc field 041a) 2) Try to find it through Advanced search + more options with language set to Slovak 3) Nothing is found 4) Apply this patch 5) Repeat steps 1 and 2 6) Record is found now Signed-off-by: Mark Tompsett <mtompset@hotmail.com> Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
(In reply to M. Tompsett from comment #7) > As such, I'm leaning towards they should all be Bibliographic. So, I'm going > to sign this off. However, we should fix the others too. Where? When? Who?
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #10) > (In reply to M. Tompsett from comment #7) > > As such, I'm leaning towards they should all be Bibliographic. So, I'm going > > to sign this off. However, we should fix the others too. > > Where? When? Who? See comment #4 for the list that needs fixing. See bug 20482 for the rest of them.
Sorry, I missed the "See also" field. Thanks Mark.
It's not clear to me if I should push this one without bug 20482 (why fix one when all should be fixed?)
Pushed to master for 18.05, thanks to everybody involved!