 |
 |
Dear Karen & all, > > language taging is complex. In the first instance there is the language > > of the object/resource being describe. > > Yes, which is why I suggested that the language tagged is limited to the > language of the resource. That's what field 008 positions 35-37 "Language" are for, and most of the subfields in MARC field 041 "Language Code" http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd041.html (And 130 $l and 240 $l, and possibly some other elements.) > > Then there is the language used in the BIBFRAME doc, which may not be > > the same as the language of the object being described. > > We generally refer to this as "the language of the catalog." That isn't > coded in our metadata, AFAIK, although I wonder if CanMARC covered that, > since they often produce both an English-catalog and a French-catalog > version. Anyone? Sure: Field 040 "Cataloging Source" http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd040.html subfield $b "Language of cataloging" is used for that. We in Germany and German speaking countries as a whole mostly set this subfield to "ger" by default. It is quite helpful to know what the language of terms, notes and subject headings etc. in a MARC record is. Best wishes Reinhold > -----Urspruengliche Nachricht----- > Von: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Karen Coyle > Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Dezember 2017 15:32 > An: [log in to unmask] > Betreff: Re: [BIBFRAME] CC:AAM Statement in Support of the > Internationalization of BIBFRAME > > On 12/17/17 3:56 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote: > > Karen, > > > > language taging is complex. In the first instance there is the language > > of the object/resource being describe. > > Yes, which is why I suggested that the language tagged is limited to the > language of the resource. > > > > > Then there is the language used in the BIBFRAME doc, which may not be > > the same as the language of the object being described. > > We generally refer to this as "the language of the catalog." That isn't > coded in our metadata, AFAIK, although I wonder if CanMARC covered that, > since they often produce both an English-catalog and a French-catalog > version. Anyone? > > > > > Some strings may also be in language of the object, in script and in > > romanisation. > > > > Depending on the userver of the BIBFRAME document all the above need to > > be included. > > > > For instance an institution that is displaying daat in a Web interface > > and need to meet accessibility requirements will need to mark up all > > changes in language. > > > > Identifying lanGuage of strings may affect browers choice of language or > > what localised features are applied during rendering. > > > > For instance in most library catalogue language markup is non existent. > > So Traditional Chinese text will be displayed by either a Japanese font > > or a simplified Chinese font. Browsers will never use a traditional > > Chinese font if language markup is not present. > > Do browsers have markup within the page for this? I'm aware of the head > language encoding, but not of individual elements in the page. I guess > that CSS may add something - I'm not up with everything you can do > today. However, there is a big problem with trying to attribute > *language* to fields in bibliographic data. It only takes a few examples > to understand why: > > Title: > 1984 (book in German) > 1984 (book in Hebrew) > 1984 (book in English) > > Title: > Marie Antoinette (book in English) > Marie Antoinette (book in Swedish) > > Author: > Wong, Mario (a real name, altho not an author) > > If special exceptions are need for the unified ideograms, then I see > that as an exception that affects display, not a general declaration of > the language of strings. > > kc > > > > > > Most if not all library catalogues fail to meet what I would consider > > minimum Web internationalization standards. > > > > This is partly due to limitations in MARC itself and how it is used. > > BIBFRAME needs a robust internationalization model other wise its > > usefullness will be limited in the wider context of the Internet. > > > > Andrew > > > > On 15 Dec 2017 02:12, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask] > > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > 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 > > fields. > > > > kc > > > > 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: > > > > > > http://connect.ala.org/node/271553 > > <http://connect.ala.org/node/271553> > > > > > > Robert Rendall > > > Chair, CC:AAM 2017-2018 > > > http://www.ala.org/alcts/mgrps/camms/cmtes/ats-ccscataa > > <http://www.ala.org/alcts/mgrps/camms/cmtes/ats-ccscataa> > > > > > > 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 <tel:212%20851%202449> fax: 212 854 5167 > > <tel:212%20854%205167> > > > > -- > > Karen Coyle > > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net > > m: +1-510-435-8234 <tel:%2B1-510-435-8234> > > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600> > > > > > > > > -- > > Andrew Cunningham > > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > m: +1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600