It is very important to consider internationalization early on the life
of a standard, so this is an important effort.

I noticed what appears to be a confusion (which it may be only in the
wording) in the section on language tags. BCP47 is defined as "(Internet
Best Current Practice for the use of language tags in cases where it is
desirable to indicate the language used in an information object)." The
next paragraph refers to "romanized fields". I interpret BCP47's
"information object" to be the object that is described by the metadata,
not the metadata itself, although it could presumably be used for
either. However, defining the language of individual metadata fields is
fraught, and I don't think you are suggesting that. It would be good to
be clear (if this is what you mean) that language codes are defined for
described resources, and that only transliteration is coded for metadata


On 12/13/17 12:30 PM, Robert J. Rendall wrote:
> 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:
> Robert Rendall
> Chair, CC:AAM 2017-2018
> 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

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600