Hi Joseph,

an interesting resource.

A couple of comments:

1) It should be referencing BCP47 (
rather than rfc5646
2) The variant subtag alalc97 specifically refers to the transliterations
published in the 1997 volume of the romanisation tables. If the you are
using an ala-lc romanisation table that is not included in that edition of
the tables, or you are using a table that has changed since then, then
using alalc97 is incorrect.

Unfortunately noone has tried to register other variant subtags to offer
better coverage of ala-lc romanisation.

As you indicate language tagging of strings is important and necessary.
LIkewise appropriate support of bidi embedding levels is also important.



Andrew Cunningham
[log in to unmask]

On 30 June 2016 at 01:14, Joseph Kiegel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The University of Washington has drafted best practices for applying
> language tags to bib data:
> At the very least, the web standard is noticeably different from the MARC
> standard for language codes and some guidance for catalogers seemed
> necessary.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stuart Yeates
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 2:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
> Many points of view have been covered in this thread, but there doesn't
> appear to have been much discussion of RDF literals using '@'
> If we are planning on translating portions of BIBFRAME into many natural
> languages (or it to be taken up internationally), labelling labels with
> their natural languages is insanely important.
> Consider, for example, the Wikidata entry for the LoC:
> Much of the
> volume of the data is the translation of labels across  natural languages.
> cheers
> stuart
> --
> I have a new phone number: 04 463 5692
> /