The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards

MARC Standards

HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List


MARC PROPOSAL NO. 2018-05

DATE: May 25, 2018
REVISED:

NAME: Multiscript Records Using Codes from ISO 15924 in the Five MARC 21 Formats

SOURCE: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats

SUMMARY: This paper proposes ways on how to designate that the content of a MARC 21 field is written in a specified script by using codes from ISO 15924. The options are: "script identification code" portion of subfield $6 (Linkage), designation in field 066 (Character Sets present), and designation in field 546 (Language Note).

KEYWORDS: Multiscript records (All formats); Script (All formats); Script identification code (All formats); Subfield $6 (All formats); Linkage (All formats); Field 066 (All formats); Character Sets Present (All formats); Field 546 (All formats); Language Note (All formats); ISO 15924

RELATED: 2018-DP04

STATUS/COMMENTS:
05/25/18 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.

06/24/18 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: Approved, using Option 1: deploying codes taken from ISO 15924 in subfield $6.

08/17/18 - Results of MARC Steering Group review - Agreed with the MAC decision.


Proposal No. 2018-05: Multiscript Records Using Codes from ISO 15924

1. BACKGROUND

Most cataloging environments in German speaking countries are ISO IEC 10646 / Unicode compliant. Some of them provide the feature of machine-assisted transliteration: A text string in vernacular script can be typed into a field, with the information in which script it is written, expressed by a code from ISO 15924 "Codes for the representation of names of scripts". A second field is created, into which the transliterated version of the text string is written, and the script Latin is expressed, again by a code from ISO 15924.

For example, in the Pica-3 Format (maintained by OCLC, implemented by three regional library networks and the German National Library), a title given in Georgian language and Georgian script is manually typed into field 4000:

4000 $T01$UGeor%%არქეოლოგიური მაცნე

By invoking the transliteration process, the field is paired, the script is transliterated, and both fields have the information in which script they are written, expressed in subfield $U:

4000 $T01$ULatn%%Ark̕eologiuri mac̕ne
4000 $T01$UGeor%%არქეოლოგიური მაცნე

Internally, in Pica+, which is the storage format, the two fields look as follows:

021A $T01$ULatn$aArk̕eologiuri mac̕ne
021A $T01$UGeor$aარქეოლოგიური მაცნე

By conversion into MARC 21, these fields are provided as field 245 and 880, linked together by a subfield $6:

245 00 $6880-01$aArk̕eologiuri mac̕ne
880 10 $6245-01$aარქეოლოგიური მაცნე

Strictly speaking, there is, for the moment, no place in MARC 21 to transport the script code of a field according to ISO 15924. As an interim solution a decision was made to use the ISO 15924 codes instead of the MARC-8 based script codes:

245 00 $6880-01/Latn$aArk̕eologiuri mac̕ne
880 10 $6245-01/Geor$aარქეოლოგიური მაცნე

This worked well as long as MARC 21 records were exchanged between partners applying the same policy. Outside of this context, the described use resulted in error messages, e.g.

"1st $6 in 1st 245 is too long."

This Proposal, based on the preceding Discussion Paper 2018-DP04, suggests ways to solve this issue.

The intention is to keep the script information in the field, so that receiving library systems can re-use the script codes, and build functionalities upon them (indexing and searching, selecting, presenting, etc.).

Admittedly, in Unicode each character by its code point has a property expressing that it belongs to a script, so that technically it is possible to analyze the content of a given field and identify the script. It is easier however to have this information at hand, and expressed in MARC 21.

In general, describing resources in multiple scripts is possible in MARC using different models, according to e.g. Appendix D: Multiscript Records of the MARC Bibliographic format.

Model B for "Simple multiscript records" is not covered by this paper, because in German speaking countries most libraries use Model A, or an internal equivalent of it (as shown above).

Model A, called "vernacular and transliteration", pairs fields inside the record, a pair consisting of a main field and a field 880. By applying Model A, a record can be presented to different users in different ways. Controlling the scripts which are used in specific fields enhances searching and presentation of information.

Field 880 (Alternate Graphic Representation) provides "fully content-designated representation, in a different script, of another field in the same record. Field 880 is linked to the associated regular field by subfield $6 (Linkage). A subfield $6 in the associated field also links that field to the 880 field."

The portions of subfield $6 are defined in Appendix A: Control Subfields:

Regarding the script identification code, it is noted that the "entire field need not be in the script identified in subfield $6. If more than one script is present in the field, subfield $6 will contain the identification of the first alternate script encountered in a left-to-right scan of the field."

The following script identification codes are defined and used for the respective scripts:

Code Script
(3 Arabic
(B Latin
$1 Chinese, Japanese, Korean
(N Cyrillic
(S Greek
(2 Hebrew

These values are derived from the MARC 8 character set, an implementation of ISO IEC 2022, "Character Code Structure and Extension Techniques" / ANSI X3.41, "Code Extension Techniques for Use with 7-bit and 8-bit Character Sets".

Nowadays, many library systems code their data in Unicode. Unicode allows the use of significantly more scripts than are contained in the list of MARC script identification codes. Correspondingly and strictly kept in sync with Unicode, ISO 15924 "Codes for the representation of names of scripts" provides a growing list of scripts (in English and French terminology), with coded values in alphabetic and numeric form. More information is available at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/.

This paper proposes allowing the recording of alphabetic or numeric codes taken from ISO 15924 in MARC 21 as a script identification code. While keeping the paired information of fields in a vernacular and transliterated form, the extension to ISO 15924 based values can add to the flexibility whenever model A is used in multiscript records.

2. DISCUSSION

2.1. Subfield $6 Option

At the meeting of the MARC Advisory Committee, the preceding Discussion Paper was discussed, which focused on using codes from ISO 15924 as the "script identification code" portion of subfield $6 (Linkage) in all five MARC 21 formats. The summary reads as follows:

"The committee expressed an understanding of the need described in the paper. A majority was in favor of the solution as written, with the exception of the British community, where the concern was that the content of $6 acts as an instruction to the computer regarding how many bytes each character has, and that an LMS may produce a garbled output if the information is missing. Deprecating MARC-8 codes in $6 or identifying language information were generally not supported. DNB will submit a proposal with new options: additional subfield codes within the 066 field, to cover both MARC-8 and UTF-8/Unicode, or use of repeatable fields 546 (Language Note) including subfield $8 for linking."

The concern brought up by the British community was not so much about the script identification code itself (be it ISO 2022 / MARC-8 based, or ISO 15924 / Unicode based) but about the "intermediate character sequence portion" which is "(" or "$" as part of subfield $6, on the basis of referring to the MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure, Character Sets, and Exchange Media: Character Sets and Encoding Options: Part 2: MARC-8 Encoding Environment. As the minutes put it:

"The documentation indicates that the intermediate character sequence portion (e.g. "(" or "$") of the current script identification codes specified in subfield $6 act as an instruction to the computer regarding how many bytes each character has; an LMS may produce a garbled output if it expects an instruction on how to display a script, but receives the label for a code from ISO 15924 which only informs the user what the script is."

The "MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure, Character Sets, and Exchange Media, Character Sets and Encoding Options: Part 3, Unicode Encoding Environment" at //www.loc.gov/marc/specifications/speccharucs.html contain instructions about subfield $6:

"The subfield $6 script identification code in MARC-8-encoded MARC 21 records identifies MARC-8 character sets, rather than scripts per se; hence the code is irrelevant in the Unicode environment because the character set is always UCS, which has no script identification code value. The script identification code should be dropped from subfield $6 when converting to Unicode from MARC-8 encoding."

We still think that the introduction of script codes according to ISO 15924 into subfield $6 is a helpful and important contribution to making the MARC 21 format even more Unicode-compliant than it is now.

The statement quoted above that "the code is irrelevant in the Unicode environment" sounds too harsh to us, and restricts the script identification codes to the MARC-8 character set, preventing more open and flexible use cases in MARC 21.

The instructions say that "[t]he script identification code should be dropped from subfield $6 when converting to Unicode from MARC-8 encoding", which can be understood, as there is no one-to-one mapping from the entries on the small MARC-8 based list to ISO 15924. In born-Unicode environments a different approach can be taken and should be reflected in MARC 21, and in the quoted sections of the documentation.

Examples 3.1.2. and 3.2.2. show how the subfield $6 option would look like.

Furthermore, we are exploring the other solutions suggested, i.e. field 066, and field 546.

2.2. Field 066 Option

Field 066 (Character Sets Present) by definition provides

"[i]nformation that indicates that the records were encoded with characters from sets other than ISO 10646 (or Unicode). [...] Alerts users that special processing may be required. Codes for identifying character sets are all but the first character of the escape sequences that designate the sets (the first character is the escape character, hex 1B)."

Field 066 has the following subfields:

$a - Primary G0 character set (NR)
$b - Primary G1 character set (NR)
$c - Alternate G0 or G1 character set (R)

We can envision introducing two new subfields "$d" and "$e", to express the presence of the main script used in the record scripts, and the presence of additional scripts beyond the main script, e.g. Latin script for English language + Georgian script for Georgian language. Subfield $d should be non-repeatable, and subfield $e should be repeatable, as multiple additional scripts may occur in one record.

Field 066 is defined in all five MARC 21 formats, which would make it a flexible solution for all five formats.

However, the disadvantage of the 066 solution is clearly visible: The field context is lost, there is no information as to which single field is provided in which script. Implicitly the main fields (245, 264, etc.) may be a transliterated version of the original script in fields 880, but according to model A this may be implemented vice versa as well. In cases where one main script and two or more original scripts are used, the information definitely becomes lossy.

Examples 3.1.3. and 3.2.3. show how the 066 option would look like.

The two options (script codes in subfields $6, and in field 066) are not mutually exclusive. Examples 3.1.4. und 3.2.4. show how a combination would look like.

2.3. Field 546 Option

Field 546 (Language Note) provides

"[t]extual information on the language or notation system used to convey the content of the described materials. A description of the alphabet, script, or other symbol system (e.g., arabic alphabet, ASCII, musical notation system, bar code, logarithmic graphing) may also be included. Coded language information is contained in fields 008/35-37 (Language) and/or 041 (Language code)."

Defined subfields are:

$a - Language note (NR)
$b - Information code or alphabet (R)
$3 - Materials specified (NR)
$6 - Linkage (NR)
$8 - Field link and sequence number (R)

Subfield $a "[s]pecifies the language(s) of the resource", and subfield $b

"[s]pecifies the alphabet, script, or notation system that is used in the resource.
This includes specialized scripts, typefaces, or codes (e.g., Arabic alphabet, Arabic numerals, ASCII, bar code, BCD, braille, ciphers, Cyrillic alphabet, EBCDIC, Fraktur, Greek alphabet, Hebrew alphabet, hieroglyphics, musical notation systems, pictograms, Roman alphabet, Roman numerals, or logarithmic or semilogarithmic graphing, etc.)."

Both $a and $b provide information about the resource, and not about a single field in a MARC 21 record. Mixing these levels in one field seems to be stretching the present definition, and risks misinterpretation.

Field 546 is defined in MARC Bibliographic and similarly in MARC Community Information (subfield $b would have to be added first), it may be defined in MARC Holdings and in MARC Classification, and would have to be defined with a different field number in MARC Authority, as there the 5XX block is defined for "See Also From Tracings".

In addition, to cover the field context needed here, field specific linkage would have to be supported by using $8 "Field link and sequence number". A new field link type (e.g. "t" for "transliteration") would have to be defined first. While this is feasible, the usage of $8 adds to the complexity of the fields (with subfields $6 to be kept), and is not preferred without good reasons.

Though we do not think the field 546 option is feasible, it is nevertheless presented here as an option in response to the British community’s concerns presented at Midwinter.

Examples 3.1.5. and 3.2.5. show how the 546 option would look like.

3. EXAMPLES

3.1. Serial with text in Georgian language and script, summaries in English language and Latin script

(based on https://zdb-katalog.de/title.xhtml?idn=1132721385)

3.1.1. No script information

LDR 01680nas a2200385 c 4500
001 1132721385
003 DE-101
008 170524d20132015xx z||p|  ||| 0||||0geo c
022 ## $a2346-7584
041 ## $ageo$aeng
044 ## $cXB-GE
245 00 $6880-01$aArk̕eologiuri mac̕ne$b= Archaeological review
246 11 $aArchaeological review
246 1# $iParalleltitel No. 1 (2013)$aArchaeological review of Gori Museum
246 1# $6880-02$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$aGoris Muzeumis ark̕eologiuri mac̕ne
264 31 $aTbilisi$bProf. Sergi Makalatia Gori Historical-Ethnographical Museum$c[2013-2015?]
546 ## $aText auf Georgisch, Zusammenfassungen auf Englisch
880 10 $6245-01$a[title in Georgian language and script]
880 1# $6246-02$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$a[varying form of title in Georgian language and script]

3.1.2. Script information in subfields $6

LDR 01680nas a2200385 c 4500
001 1132721385
003 DE-101
008 170524d20132015xx z||p|  ||| 0||||0geo c
022 ## $a2346-7584
041 ## $ageo$aeng
044 ## $cXB-GE
245 00 $6880-01/Latn$aArk̕eologiuri mac̕ne$b= Archaeological review
246 11 $aArchaeological review
246 1# $iParalleltitel No. 1 (2013)$aArchaeological review of Gori Museum
246 1# $6880-02/Latn$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$aGoris Muzeumis ark̕eologiuri mac̕ne
264 31 $aTbilisi$bProf. Sergi Makalatia Gori Historical-Ethnographical Museum$c[2013-2015?]
546 ## $aText auf Georgisch, Zusammenfassungen auf Englisch
880 10 $6245-01/Geor$a[title in Georgian language and script]
880 1# $6246-02/Geor$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$a[varying form of title in Georgian language and script]

3.1.3. Script information in field 066

LDR 01680nas a2200385 c 4500
001 1132721385
003 DE-101
008 170524d20132015xx z||p|  ||| 0||||0geo c
022 ## $a2346-7584
041 ## $ageo$aeng
044 ## $cXB-GE
066 ## $dLatn$eGeor
245 00 $6880-01$aArk̕eologiuri mac̕ne$b= Archaeological review
246 11 $aArchaeological review
246 1# $iParalleltitel No. 1 (2013)$aArchaeological review of Gori Museum
246 1# $6880-02$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$aGoris Muzeumis ark̕eologiuri mac̕ne
264 31 $aTbilisi$bProf. Sergi Makalatia Gori Historical-Ethnographical Museum$c[2013-2015?]
546 ## $aText auf Georgisch, Zusammenfassungen auf Englisch
880 10 $6245-01$a[title in Georgian language and script]
880 1# $6246-02$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$a[varying form of title in Georgian language and script]

3.1.4. Script information both in subfields $6 and in field 066

LDR 01680nas a2200385 c 4500
001 1132721385
003 DE-101
008 170524d20132015xx z||p|  ||| 0||||0geo c
022 ## $a2346-7584
041 ## $ageo$aeng
044 ## $cXB-GE
066 ## $dLatn$eGeor
245 00 $6880-01/Latn$aArk̕eologiuri mac̕ne$b= Archaeological review
246 11 $aArchaeological review
246 1# $iParalleltitel No. 1 (2013)$aArchaeological review of Gori Museum
246 1# $6880-02/Latn$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$aGoris Muzeumis ark̕eologiuri mac̕ne
264 31 $aTbilisi$bProf. Sergi Makalatia Gori Historical-Ethnographical Museum$c[2013-2015?]
546 ## $aText auf Georgisch, Zusammenfassungen auf Englisch
880 10 $6245-01/Geor$a[title in Georgian language and script]
880 1# $6246-02/Geor$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$a[varying form of title in Georgian language and script]

3.1.5. Script information in fields 546, subfields $8 with field link type "\t"

LDR 01680nas a2200385 c 4500
001 1132721385
003 DE-101
008 170524d20132015xx z||p|  ||| 0||||0geo c
022 ## $a2346-7584
041 ## $ageo$aeng
044 ## $cXB-GE
245 00 $81\t$6880-01$aArk̕eologiuri mac̕ne$b= Archaeological review
246 11 $aArchaeological review
246 1# $iParalleltitel No. 1 (2013)$aArchaeological review of Gori Museum
246 1# $82\t$6880-02$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$aGoris Muzeumis ark̕eologiuri mac̕ne
264 31 $aTbilisi$bProf. Sergi Makalatia Gori Historical-Ethnographical Museum$c[2013-2015?]
546 ## $aText auf Georgisch, Zusammenfassungen auf Englisch
546 ## $81\t$bLatn
546 ## $82\t$bLatn
546 ## $83\t$bGeor
546 ## $84\t$bGeor
880 10 $83\t$6245-01$a[title in Georgian language and script]
880 1# $84\t$6246-02$iHaupttitel No. 1 (2013)$a[varying form of title in Georgian language and script]

3.2. Serial in French language in Latin script, Berber language in Tifinagh script, and Arabic language and script

(based on https://zdb-katalog.de/title.xhtml?idn=1078225613)

3.2.1. No script information

LDR 01119nas a2200301 c 4500
001 1078225613
003 DE-101
008 151102c19849999|||u||p|  ||| 0||||0fre c
041 ## $afre$aber$aara
245 00 $aEnsemble$bbulletin du diocèse de Rabat
246 1# $6880-01$iParalleltitel$aMa'an
246 1# $6880-02$iParalleltitel$aKullutneɣ
246 10 $aKullutnegh kullutner kullutnəʁ kullutnɣ kullutngh kullutnr معا
264 31 $aRabat$b[Verlag nicht ermittelbar]$c[1984?]-
880 1# $6246-01//r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Arabic language and script]
880 1# $6246-02//r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Berber language in Tifinagh script]

3.2.2. Script information in subfields $6

LDR 01119nas a2200301 c 4500
001 1078225613
003 DE-101
008 151102c19849999|||u||p|  ||| 0||||0fre c
041 ## $afre$aber$aara
245 00 $aEnsemble$bbulletin du diocèse de Rabat
246 1# $6880-01/Latn$iParalleltitel$aMa'an
246 1# $6880-02/Latn$iParalleltitel$aKullutneɣ
246 10 $aKullutnegh kullutner kullutnəʁ kullutnɣ kullutngh kullutnr معا
264 31 $aRabat$b[Verlag nicht ermittelbar]$c[1984?]-
880 1# $6246-01/Arab/r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Arabic language and script]
880 1# $6246-02/Tfng/r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Berber language in Tifinagh script]

3.2.3. Script information in field 066

LDR 01119nas a2200301 c 4500
001 1078225613
003 DE-101
008 151102c19849999|||u||p|  ||| 0||||0fre c
041 ## $afre$aber$aara
066 ## $dLatn$eArab$eTfng
245 00 $aEnsemble$bbulletin du diocèse de Rabat
246 1# $6880-01$iParalleltitel$aMa'an
246 1# $6880-02$iParalleltitel$aKullutneɣ
246 10 $aKullutnegh kullutner kullutnəʁ kullutnɣ kullutngh kullutnr معا
264 31 $aRabat$b[Verlag nicht ermittelbar]$c[1984?]-
880 1# $6246-01//r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Arabic language and script]
880 1# $6246-02//r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Berber language in Tifinagh script]

3.2.4. Script information both in subfields $6 and in field 066

LDR 01119nas a2200301 c 4500
001 1078225613
003 DE-101
008 151102c19849999|||u||p|  ||| 0||||0fre c
041 ## $afre$aber$aara
066 ## $dLatn$eArab$eTfng
245 00 $aEnsemble$bbulletin du diocèse de Rabat
246 1# $6880-01/Latn$iParalleltitel$aMa'an
246 1# $6880-02/Latn$iParalleltitel$aKullutneɣ
246 10 $aKullutnegh kullutner kullutnəʁ kullutnɣ kullutngh kullutnr معا
264 31 $aRabat$b[Verlag nicht ermittelbar]$c[1984?]-
880 1# $6246-01/Arab/r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Arabic language and script]
880 1# $6246-02/Tfng/r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Berber language in Tifinagh script]

3.2.5. Script information in fields 546, subfields $8 with field link type "\t"

LDR 01119nas a2200301 c 4500
001 1078225613
003 DE-101
008 151102c19849999|||u||p|  ||| 0||||0fre c
041 ## $afre$aber$aara
245 00 $aEnsemble$bbulletin du diocèse de Rabat
246 1# $81\t$6880-01/Latn$iParalleltitel$aMa'an
246 1# $82\t$6880-02/Latn$iParalleltitel$aKullutneɣ
246 10 $aKullutnegh kullutner kullutnəʁ kullutnɣ kullutngh kullutnr معا
264 31 $aRabat$b[Verlag nicht ermittelbar]$c[1984?]-
546 ## $81\t$bLatn
546 ## $82\t$bLatn
546 ## $83\t$bArab
546 ## $84\t$bTfng
880 1# $83\t$6246-01//r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Arabic language and script]
880 1# $84\t$6246-02/Tfng/r$iParalleltitel$a[varying form of title in Berber language in Tifinagh script]

4. BIBFRAME DISCUSSION

For BIBFRAME conversion the ISO 15924 codes would be preferred. While the current limited set of codes have their basis in ISO 8-bit character set developments, if all current and retrospective records used the 15924 codes, conversions to BIBFRAME would be more consistent and flexible.

5. PROPOSED CHANGES

5.1. Subfield $6 Option

For all five MARC 21 Formats, allow and describe that subfield $6 may contain script codes either based on ISO 2022 (preferably in MARC-8 records), leaving the "intermediate character sequence portion" intact, or based on ISO 15924 (preferably in Unicode records). Adjust Appendix A - Control Subfields documentation accordingly.

Suggested wording for Appendix A: Control Subfields, section "$6 - Linkage", paragraph "Script identification code":

Script identification code - Occurrence number is followed immediately by a slash (/) and the script identification code. This code identifies the alternate script found in the field. The following codes are used:

Code Script
(3 Arabic
(B Latin
$1 Chinese, Japanese, Korean
(N Cyrillic
(S Greek
(2 Hebrew

880 1#$6100-01/(N$a[Heading in Cyrillic script]

To be added:

"These codes have been defined based on the MARC-8 coded character set, which is an implementation of ISO IEC 2022, "Character Code Structure and Extension Techniques", itself an equivalent to ANSI X3.41, "Code Extension Techniques for Use with 7-bit and 8-bit Character Sets".

In a Unicode environment, script identification codes may instead be taken from ISO 15924 "Codes for the representation of names of scripts", available at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/ . Either the alphabetic values (consisting of four letters) or the numerical values (consisting of three digits) may be used.

880 1#$6100-01/Cyrl$a[Heading in Cyrillic script]

880 1#$6100-01/220$a[Heading in Cyrillic script]"

5.2. Field 066 Option

In all five MARC 21 Formats, in field 066 (Character Sets Present)

5.2.1. Change the "Field Definition and Scope", first paragraph, first sentence from:

"Information that indicates that the records were encoded with characters from sets other than ISO 10646 (or Unicode)."

to

"Information that indicates which scripts are used for the encoding of the record."

Change the second paragraph (additions underlined):

"Alerts users that special processing may be required. Codes for identifying character sets in $a, $b and $c are all but the first character of the escape sequences that designate the sets (the first character is the escape character, hex 1B). Codes for identifying scripts in $d and $e are values taken from ISO 15924 "Codes for the representation of names of scripts"."

5.2.2. Define two new subfields $d and $e.

Suggested wording:

$d - Code for main script of the record (NR)
In a record encoded with characters from ISO 10646 / Unicode, provides the code of the main script of the record. Value is taken from ISO 15924 "Codes for the representation of names of scripts", available at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/ . Either an alphabetic value (consisting of four letters) or a numerical value (consisting of three digits) may be used.

066 ## $dLatn$eGeor

066 ## $d215$e240

$e - Code for additional script of the record (R)
In a record encoded with characters from ISO 10646 / Unicode, provides the code of an additional script of the record. Values are taken from ISO 15924 "Codes for the representation of names of scripts", available at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/ . Either alphabetic values (consisting of four letters) or numerical values (consisting of three digits) may be used.

066 ## $dLatn$eArab$eTfng

066 ## $d215$e160$e120

5.3. Field 546 Option

Make the following changes in the five MARC 21 formats regarding field 546 (Language Note):

Note:
For several reasons, the solution of field 546 does not seem to be a feasible one. In the interest of brevity, we refrain from further exploring this solution.


HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List

The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
(08/17/2018)
Legal | External Link Disclaimer Contact Us