Print

Print


Although

rdfs:label "Ljiljana Vukić"@sr-Latn ;

Would be more correct than

rdfs:label "Ljiljana Vukić"@en ;

This tag would imply that it is a anglicised version of the name, rather
than transliterated version.

Serbian does have an alternative Latin orthography.

Or maybe

rdfs:label "Ljiljana Vukić"@sr-Latn ;
rdfs:label "Љиљана Вукић"@sr-Cyrl ;

Would be more accurate since Serbian doesn't  have a suppress  script field.

But it is probably more importantto differentiate for languages like Arabic
where there are  range of romanisation schemes in use.

Language tages are used in lots of different ways for different purposes.

Yes browsers use language tags. For some languages it is used for font
fallback, ie CJK text, by default most broswers automatically use a
simplified Chinese font for displaying CJKV data. Unless explicit fonts are
specified in the relevant elements font stack or the elements are
appropriately tagged.

Library catalogues rarely have html language tagging, so Traditional
Chinese, Japanese kanji and Korean hanja are often displayed using a
Simplified Chinese font.

Some language tags are a linked to corresponding opentype language
typographic system tags (which aren't language tags) and will use
appropriate locl features in Opentype fonts for correct rendering of a
language.

Search tools, accessibility tools, etc all use language tagginig.
On 2 Jul 2016 4:53 am, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Aside,
>
> At least some of transliterations (particularly "names") can be treated
> using existing BCP-47 tokens.
>
> For example, in OCN:100011210 <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/100011210>:
>
> 700 [0] 1_   [33$6] 880-04   [1$a] Vukić, Ljiljana.
> 880 [0] 1_   [33$6] 700-04/(N   [1$a] Вукић, Љиљана.
>
> Mapping these fields (and using other clues in the record) can reasonably
> produce:
>
>     r <http://schema.org/name>dfs:label "Ljiljana Vukić"@en ;
>     r <http://schema.org/name>dfs:label "Љиљана Вукић"@sr ;
>
> Romanization rules may have been used to generate the 700 form, but
> capturing that fact doesn’t seem very important.
>
> This mechanism doesn’t work well for non-names, which end up being more
> about capturing phonetics as opposed to “language". In those cases, the
> literals would have to be translated instead of transliterated in order to
> attach more useful “languagy" language-tags.
>
> I would also note that web browsers are configured to use BCP-47 tokens
> which servers can leverage for display. It’s unlikely that someone would
> choose extension language tags to control displays of the data.
>
> Jeff
>
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Andrew Cunningham <
> [log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <
> [log in to unmask]>
> Date: Friday, July 1, 2016 at 12:48 PM
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Language tags
>
> But if record is being consumed by system that requires bcp47, or being
> output to web, you still have the issue of passing along or generating an
> appropriate language tag.
> On 2 Jul 2016 1:58 am, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Another approach might be to use SKOS-XL instead of language tags like so:
>>
>> :A1 a skosxl:Label;
>> rdfs:label “Ελληνική Δημοκρατία”@gr
>> skosxl:literalForm “Hellēnikē Dēmokratia”;
>> bf:romanizationRule <
>> https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/oriya.pdf>;
>> .
>>
>> It’s a little heavy, but a construct like this would tie the key pieces
>> together. A custom language tag on the transliteration can’t tie in the
>> native term.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <
>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Andrew Cunningham <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Friday, July 1, 2016 at 11:39 AM
>> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Language tags
>>
>>
>> On 1 Jul 2016 2:19 am, "Joseph Kiegel" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It is less than ideal, yes, but it was the only one that was proposed as
>> a variant subtag. And no one has proposed a way to tag anything else.
>>
>> It doesn't help that romanisation tables lacked good versioning
>> information, etc.
>>
>