LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  December 2017

BIBFRAME December 2017

Subject:

Re: CC:AAM Statement in Support of the Internationalization of BIBFRAME

From:

Rebecca Guenther <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:07:23 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (247 lines)

BIBFRAME doesn’t limit itself to “the same ecosystem”, which I assume you mean the use of ISO 639-2/B language tags (these are the same as MARC language codes),  The language codes are available as Linked Data at http://id.loc.gov, so that already allows for integration into the “wider web”. BIBFRAME allows for using a URI and/or a label and is neutral on the source of the tag/code. Given the many parts of a language tag using BCP 47 and the wide variation in combinations, it isn’t clear whether all variations could be given URIs to enable use as Linked Data. In MARC it has always been the case that the basic or primary language is given in a fixed field with a code from a specific source (MARC), and complexities in language coding can be given in a variable field (041). This includes bringing out languages that apply only to a specific part of the resource (e.g. subtitles, table of contents, etc.), multiple languages, and use of alternative standard sources (coding systems other than MARC). Those alternatives are also in BIBFRAME, giving it flexibility in the expression of language aspects of a resource. For those that don’t need the precision of language + script + language variation + country (or any other combination), they can rely on a primary standard language code but also code for the other complexities.

Rebecca


> On Dec 18, 2017, at 2:59 AM, Andrew Cunningham <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Juha,
> 
> BCP 47 currently includes both RFC 5646 and RFC 4647, so a reference
> to RFC 5646 does not equate to BCP 47.
> 
> MARC language identification remaining as it is is quite probable. It
> fails already in web catalogues, but it is unlikely to change.
> 
> The issue is whether BIBFRAME will limit itself to the same ecosystem
> or will integrate into the wider web. BCP-47 is the norm for the rest
> of the web.  And whether tools and scripts that utilise BIBFRAME will
> have to extrapolate or guess language data.
> 
> Andrew
> Andrew Cunningham
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> On 18 December 2017 at 18:13, Hakala, Juha E <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> since BCP 47 has been published as RFC 5646, it is already included as a
>> code source in http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/language.html. In
>> order to clarify this, the source list could be modified to say “A language
>> identifier as specified by the Internet Engineering Task Force Best Current
>> Practice 47 (RFC5646)”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It is in principle quite simple to use ISO 639 – and especially ISO 639-2 -
>> for cataloguing (being a member of ISO 639/JAC, I know only too well that
>> maintaining ISO 639-2 can be difficult at times). But if libraries start
>> using BCP 47 instead or in addition to ISO 639, it might be necessary to
>> provide guidelines on how it should be used and how the resulting codes
>> should be indexed. It is easy for the library systems to deal with ISO 639-2
>> codes, but the full functionality of BCP 47 is not trivial to support well.
>> There are situations when it would be useful to specify the region where the
>> language variant is spoken and/or the script in which the text is written,
>> but to decrypt the resulting BCP 47 codes for OPAC display could be a
>> challenge. Some examples of language tags from BCP 47:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> en-US represents American English
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> de-CH represents Swiss German; note that the existing ISO 639-2 code gsw for
>> Schwiizerdütsch does not need to be used
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> de-CH-1901 means Swiss German using the 1901 variant ortography
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Private extensions are possible with “x-“:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> de-CH-x-phonebk might mean Swiss German used in phone books.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mandarin Chinese can be encoded in two ways: cmn (the code for Mandarin from
>> ISO 6393) or zh-cmn (macrolanguage code for Chinese from ISO 639-1 and
>> 639-3). With script and region information added the BCP 47 tag might become
>> zh-cmn-Hans-CH (Chinese, Mandarin, Simplified script, as used in China).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> es-419 represents Spanish in UN-defined Latin America and Caribbean region
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> en-scotland-fonipa represents a text in Scottish dialect, written in
>> International Phonetic Alphabet.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> sr-Latn-RS represents Serbian (sr) written using Latin script (Latn) as used
>> in Serbia. Note that two-letter language code from ISO 639-1 must be used in
>> one exists.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> sl-rozaj-biske-1994 represents San Giorgio dialect of Resian dialect of
>> Slovenian, in standardized Resian ortography
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Using BCP 47 in its simplest level (two letter codes from ISO 639-1) would
>> not bring mch added value to the current ISO 639-2 usage. Having both two-
>> and three-letter codes of languages in MARC records might be confusing. If
>> and when BCP 47 is used, it should be done when it provides added value, for
>> instance to describe a resource written in a dialect that cannot be
>> described in ISO 639 (note that ISO 639-6 which was supposed to cover
>> dialects have been discontinued) or in a script which is not typical for the
>> language or the region. But just asking the cataloguers to start using BCP
>> 47 without any additional guidelines may not be the ideal solution given the
>> rich functionality supported by the specification.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Juha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew Cunningham
>> Sent: 18. joulukuuta 2017 2:09
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] CC:AAM Statement in Support of the
>> Internationalization of BIBFRAME
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Rebecca.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Using iso-639-1, iso-639-2/B or iso-639-3 is insufficient.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> BCP47 includes subtag for language, script, region and variant as well as a
>> series of extension mechanisms such as -t- sequences.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> BCP47 also addresses duplication between iso-639-1, iso-639-2/T and
>> iso-639-3.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, 16 December 2017, Rebecca Guenther <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> The need to be able to use ISO 639-1 and 639-3 language codes was recognized
>> by the MARC community some time ago (actually in 2001), and there is a
>> mechanism to record them in field 041, e.g.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 041 07 $a en $a fr $2 iso639-1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I’m not sure how widely implemented it is. Subfield $2 contains the source
>> of the code and the sources are in the list at
>> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/language.html. At the time, the RFCs
>> were being used (and as you can see from the list of source codes, they were
>> revised a lot). BCP 47 could be added to the source code list so that it
>> could be used in MARC records for now.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Rebecca
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Rebecca Squire Guenther
>> 215 W. 75th St. Apt. 16H
>> New York, NY 10023
>> 703-298-0157
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.meetyourdata.com
>> 
>> On Dec 14, 2017, at 2:48 AM, Osma Suominen <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Most existing MARC data incorporates use of the language codes found in ISO
>> 693-2/B. While the codes in this standard are useful, it may be necessary in
>> implementation to accommodate the codes from ISO 639-1 (2-letter codes) and
>> ISO 639-3 as well.
>> 
>> 
>> Adhering to BCP 47 would already provide a mechanism for expressing ISO
>> 639-1 and 639-3 language codes, so I don't see why the implementation-level
>> consideration is not simply to use BCP 47 as was already stated under
>> General considerations.
>> 
>> 
>> -Osma
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Robert J. Rendall kirjoitti 13.12.2017 klo 22:30:
>> 
>> Colleagues -
>> The ALA/ALCTS Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials (CC:AAM)
>> has voted to approve a Statement in Support of the Internationalization of
>> BIBFRAME, containing recommendations on character encoding, the
>> representation of original script and romanization, normalization, and
>> language tags:
>> http://connect.ala.org/node/271553
>> Robert Rendall
>> Chair, CC:AAM 2017-2018
>> http://www.ala.org/alcts/mgrps/camms/cmtes/ats-ccscataa
>> Robert Rendall
>> Principal Serials Cataloger
>> Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries
>> 102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027
>> tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Osma Suominen
>> D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist
>> National Library of Finland
>> P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4)
>> 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO
>> Tel. +358 50 3199529
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.nationallibrary.fi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Andrew Cunningham
>> 
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 

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

January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 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
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager