Skip to main content


We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities:


Hi Morane,
Very briefly here – and then maybe we can mode the discussion on the document online: the point I wanted to raise is on the distinction between the concepts “language” and “artefact produced using such a language”. To me this distinction is crucial. In my mind – maybe wrongly – I always thought that a “research software” is an artefact written in a particular programming language, not a programming language per se.
Also, I would say that Scala is not the only open-source programming language available out there. What about Python, for instance? Should it be considered a “research software” as well, at least in a particular time window?
Thus, the real point that we need to clarify first is whether the distinction between programming language and research software is in place or not. To me, they refer to two distinct and non-overlapping concepts, but this is my personal opinion.
I have on purpose avoided to use the word “book” in my previous example, due to the possible ambiguities it can generate – which is the core topic addressed by the IFLA’s FRBR standard. What do you mean with the term “book”? 😉
Have a nice day 🙂
Silvio Peroni, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies
University of Bologna, Bologna (Italy)
Director, OpenCitations –