I haven't had a chance to look closely at the document yet, but it does disturb me that "a team from Zephira" appears to have, having thought about it for a few months, swept away nearly two decades of consideration by the best minds in the cataloging profession by apparently abandoning the FRBR model, as Mac points out below. I realize not everyone agrees with the FRBR model but I should think such a step should not happen simply because of a report from a consulting group. Sally McCallum said in her announcement that "like MARC, [the model] must be able to accommodate any number of content models", which is certainly true, but one would think that at least one of those content models might be RDA, which was the entire impetus for hiring Zephira to come up with a new model for us. Since RDA is firmly based on FRBR and DOES include provisions for describing and linking to expressions, it does seem inappropriate that the new model should not provide for this entity. I have a hard time seeing how this model would be any better a fit for RDA than the current MARC model.

Further, report's apparent continuation of a model that continues the division of the database into "authority" and "instance" (which I gather is more or less the equivalent of bibliographic records, see p. 10 of the report) seems extremely backward to me. In an ER linked data database we would have descriptions of the entities linked by relationship links.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

Posted to Bibframe:


>http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf

Creative Work - a resource reflecting a conceptual essence of the
cataloging item.

Instance - a resource reflecting an individual, material embodiment
of the Work.

Authority - a resource reflecting key authority concepts that have
defined relationships reflected in the Work and Instance. Examples of
Authority Resources include People, Places, Topics, Organizations, etc.

Annotation - a resource that decorates other BIBFRAME resources with
additional information. Examples of such annotations include Library
Holdings information, cover art and reviews.

Are we to gather that RDA's "Work" is still a work, but that "Instance"
replaces Manifestation, Expression is no more, and Item data is a part
of annotation? Will WIAA or CIAA be our new acronym, replacing WEMI?


   __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________