Print

Print


On 2/15/13 1:08 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
>
> The more I consider Internationalization and bibframe, the more I 
> realise that adopting RDF places bibframe in a different data 
> ecosystem, inheriting a lot of internationalisation features from the 
> Unicode and W3C sides.
>
> So slabs of stuff like collation may not and should not be part of 
> bibframe ever, but should be addressed in other forums like CLDR
>

I like the idea that collation, collocation, and order are application 
issues, not data issues. However, that is quite a leap from previous 
library practice where the goal of heading creation was precisely 
creating an ordered list of identifiers. If this non-collocation concept 
were to be accepted, wouldn't that also set bibframe apart from RDA 
(which I believe still has quite a bit of textual heading creation in 
its rules)?

I'm concerned that we seem to be heading in a few different directions, 
with no clarity as to how those may or may not ever work together. Quite 
honestly, moving to RDA at a time when we don't even know *when* (and 
perhaps *if*) we will be able to accommodate it in a machine-readable 
form [1] doesn't sound like a great idea.

kc
[1] And, no, I don't think that coding "RDA in MARC" is anything more 
than lipstick on a ... well, on a whatever. It seems like a square-peg, 
round-hole exercise, more pain than gain.


> On Feb 16, 2013 12:54 AM, "Tom Emerson" <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Andrew Cunningham writes:
>     [...]
>     > * sorting/collation in the Unicode context occurs within either a
>     > languageless multilingual context, ie DUCET. Which is/has just
>     undergone a
>     > few very interesting changes, and locale specific collations
>     identified in
>     > CLDR where one or more collations are defined per locale
>
>     The engineering complexity for systems like EBSCOhost and EBSCO
>     Discover
>     Service is that many collections are multilingual and are sold
>     internationally. A customer in Sweden will want their data in Swedish
>     sort order, while another in Egypt will want a tailoring that uses
>     English with a preference for Arabic. Supporting all these
>     possibilities
>     in a scalable fashion is a real challenge.
>
>     > * matching is more problematic, since it brings in both the need for
>     > normalisation and matching grapheme clusters. Although ideally
>     for some
>     > languages these would need to be custom rather than default grapheme
>     > clusters.
>
>     Indeed... internationalized sorting is a very tricky thing to get
>     right. You're pretty much guaranteed to annoy everyone.
>
>     Obligatory BibFrame Tie-in: I think collation is way out of scope for
>     this project. Obviously filing rules are necessary in any cataloging
>     system, and will need to be addressed, anything beyond that is not
>     worth
>     discussing. Adopting RDF has pretty much insured that we are moving to
>     Unicode (and good riddance to MARC-8).
>
>         -tree
>
>     --
>     Tom Emerson
>     Principal Software Engineer, Search
>     EBSCO Publishing
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>     The opinions in this message do not necessarily constitute those of
>     EBSCO Publishing.
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet