Thanks for this and I certainly agree that it's appropriate to make Bibframe a more general format and not bind it too tightly to FRBR and RDA. That said, libraries using RDA and its interpretation of FRBR or some other version of FRBR are presumably going to be some of the major users of Bibframe. So it would seem that even if Bibframe is not determined by RDA and FRBR, it still needs to be able to accommodate them. And I am still having trouble seeing how to reconcile FRBR's many-to-many relationship between manifestations and expressions with Bibframe's one work per instance.
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ford, Kevin [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe, flexibility and FRBR
With respect to
> I am glad to hear Bibframe is intended to be so flexible. However, I
> wonder if you could say more about how you plan to reconcile all this
> flexibility with the interoperability needed in a communication format?
and with respect to your earlier email, what follows seems like a good place to contribute the following note. I penned it a few days ago to a handful of people with whom I found myself in a few conversations about the "Why not model WEMI?" question. It evidently captured LC's motives well enough that I have been encouraged to share it more widely.
The BIBFRAME model consciously avoids (or at least tries to avoid) naming associated very closely with FRBR (and its practical application cousin RDA). Not so much because I think anyone has a strong dislike of Manifestation or Item (or Work or Expression), but because there is a clearly articulated objective that the model to come from this endeavor not be strictly tied to (or seen to be tied to) one model (namely RDA/FRBR). There are other communities, which have their own rules, that we hope BIBFRAME will accommodate, and not all communities will use, or will want to use, RDA rules and a FRBR theoretical model. Manifestation, Item, Expression are terms that have strong associations to RDA/FRBR.
"Accommodate" - to me - is the key word here, and I know it has been employed to describe the objective in a number of public announcements (I cannot, however, claim that other words have not also been used to capture the same, or similar, sentiment). We (and I hope that is a royal "we," meaning LC, Zepheira, and the EEs) - we are seeking to lay the foundation for something that captures the division of things in a reasonable and logical manner for what we hope is a large swath of the cultural heritage sector while also establishing a model that can represent the information libraries need in such a way that libraries can use it however libraries want to.
When a few of us in the Network Development and MARC Standards Office started chatting about the relationship of WEMI to BIBFRAME around the water cooler, I think we found agreement when we started thinking that it wasn't our job to prescribe how people will use data described in the BIBFRAME model so long as the data was present and logically presented. For example, do we need to model - explicitly - an Expression? If you have a BIBFRAME Work without a language and a BIBFRAME Work with a language component, and the latter has a defined relationship to the former, could a system not reasonably infer that the first is an RDA Work and the second an RDA Expression? (I do not use "infer" in an ontological/OWL sense but in a more rule-based sense.) There are general rules and a general understanding that need to be established around these types of inferences within the library community, but it's not to say the data isn't there.
When a library receives BIBFRAME data, the ingesting system might decide to parse it, explicitly, into its RDA parts, but if that same data is ingested by an organization that is not a library, that organization might decide to just work with the (slightly higher-level) BIBFRAME Works and Instances, without reference to RDA Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items. With the BIBFRAME model, we wish to marry the ability to derive the needed specificity while also enabling a more general use of the model.