The approach of creating variant subtags for specific editions of the ALA-LC romanization tables is outmoded, since the tables are now on the Web.

Individual tables are now updated, so if we want to keep track of changes in romanization practices, we may need variant subtags at the level of individual languages.  From the point of view of registration and maintenance, this does not sound ideal.

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew Cunningham
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Language tags

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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

On 30 June 2016 at 01:14, Joseph Kiegel <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Stuart Yeates
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 2:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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.


I have a new phone number: 04 463 5692 /