LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  March 2014

ISOJAC March 2014

Subject:

Re: What is a correct "business case for a new ISO 639" ?

From:

Michael Everson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 7 Mar 2014 12:33:33 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (40 lines)

On 7 Mar 2014, at 07:06, Juha Hakala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From library point of view, 639-2 is sufficient for the purposes of bibliographic description.

No, it isn’t. I have published half a dozen books which cannot be correctly described by ISO 639-2.

> Selecting the correct language code from 639-3 would be a lot more time consuming and require more often consultation of external experts. Even using 639-2 can be challenging at times; just to give an example Finnish libraries are familiar with, selecting the correct variant of Sami language is not trivial.

Nowadays, however, publishers are often themselves providing the metadata, as with the British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication data. So it is no longer the case that lonely librarians are responsible. 

> Libraries have used 639-2 for decades and there is zero interest within the community to change the policy in this respect. Librarians as a rule do not see 639-2 as a Procrustean bed; the standard has served us well.

Give me a break. I have books in conlangs not represented in 639-2, I have books in dialects not represented in 639-2, and I have books in languages not represented in 639-2. I provide the CIP data which the libraries all take down. But 639-3 would permit me (and other publishers *and* cataloguers) additional flexibility and accuracy. And that accuracy translates not only into comfort for the librarian, but into better opportunity for sales. 

It’s bad enough that the Library community still can’t handle Unicode text most of the time. Publishing and cataloguing is not what it was in the 20th century. 

> Language code is a part of bibliographic description and indicates the language in which the book has been written.  

Not if you exclude languages in 639-3, it doesn’t. 

> Note however that for subject description the rules are different. There the libraries can and will apply whatever level of detail they believe is appropriate, using not language codes but subject headings and / or classification codes to indicate the relevant language(s). For instance, the Finnish national bibliography contains 23 references with subject heading "vanha kirjasuomi" (old written Finnish) which does not have a code even in ISO 639-3. Another example is "amerikansuomi" (Finnish spoken by immigrants in the U.S.A.).

The distinction you make between “bibliographic description” and “subject description” is bogus. I publish some books in Volapük, which even has a 639-1 code. Those books are *correctly* described at all levels of the bibliography. I publish a book in Neo, which has a 639-3 code “neu". But it has to be described as “art” because of… what? Inertia? Laziness? Fear?

That’s crap. 

>> It is a genuine problem for book publishers who are trying to supply (for instance) the British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication metadata about our books which are in languages supported by 639-3 and not 639-2. I’m supposed to be helping the cataloguers know what language my books are in. I know better than most cataloguers do, right?
> 
> Alas, most publishers are not as helpful as you are.

More and more we are all asked to fill out these forms. The problem is that the forms don’t permit ISO 639-3. They’re based on pop-up menus. 

(Over on Amazon they don’t even support all of 639-2, And  it is IMPOSSIBLE to communicate directly with the technical experts responsible for cataloguing. They refuse to communicate with anyone except as a customer.)

> On the other hand, I do not think that the problem is as severe as you may think, since libraries can use the 639-3 codes you provide in subject description. So if somebody publishes a book in Livonian for linguists and those 25 people who still speak it as the second language, it would be ideal for us if the publisher uses both fiu (to help bibliographic description) and liv (to support subject description).

Your conservatism is very short-sighted. It’s depressing. 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
January 2021
November 2020
June 2020
May 2019
February 2019
September 2018
April 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
May 2016
April 2016
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager