Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences. It's very helpful. I hope that more of the activities of the Early Experimenters will be be publicly available soon. I'm curious--were you given any more guidance about the model than what is in the November report at http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf ?
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jackie Shieh [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 1:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Thoughts on the direction of Bibframe
I am hoping this note is not too late to share some of my experience.
I was trying to respond to your very well thought-out questions earlier.Then I got sick.
I so appreciated the opportunity of getting an insight look at the WPE at OLAC with your presentation.
Firstly, GW as one of the Early Experiments (EE) has very limited time, experience and expertise to experiment with cutting edge technology. In my case, on top of testing the model, providing feedback, my daily routine did not stop. EE were asked to experiment
the Bibframe model as proposed (the model was released in November).
Interestingly, though no specific assignments were given for the test, each took on different aspects, approaches to the project. As you see, members of the group looked at the big elephant in the room from various angles. In some ways, the outcomes
and discussions enriched the process (I hope). This process has helped me personally to understand the intent and potential of BibFrame (BF) a lot better. It was gratifying as I got to know GW data a lot better: such as the 21% of invalid
tags still exist in our ILS system!! Yikes!
Secondly, your point of the tools and crosswalks. There were various levels of mappings and crosswalks done by the EE. Each set of mappings was based on a very selective set of records or tasks that each institution decided to focus on. In the December meeting,
there were also discussions with regards to tools. Plugged-in ones in particular. The tools would facilitate experimentation by interested libraries with the library's own data. Both LC and OCLC alluded to a possibility of providing such tools for libraries
to transform and examine their data. The tools may be mounted onto respective infrastructures (OCLC or LC)?! Perhaps we will hear more updates at the Midwinter or little before then?!
Thirdly, the ability to dig deeper into the data and parse out the relationship as you pointed out. There were a great deal of discussions on the concept of relationship, its definition, how best to parse the data in the Bibframe environment. Collection relationship
(naturally with-in/out a resource, such as serials, series, In analytics, bound-with, even, TOC?, etc.) for which libraries have taken different approaches to express them in MARC.
In GW's data, I found many older data coded in a general note without subfield (such as Bound with). But, with consistent use of phraseology for certain type of material and punctuations, it helped when transforming MARC data to BF data.
Consistent punctuation most certainly helps the transformation of data from current encoding environment to Work, Instance environment. The transforming exercise during the experiment helped to strategize prepping of data too.
Subgroups were tasked to work on various aspects. This point paper on relationship hopefully may help us think through the relationships on various levels as related to the BF environment of Work and Instance.
Lastly, the discussion of new data to be created in BF did not take up much real estate as the group has been trying to nail down the definition of Work and Instance, and how Authority related to the two elements.
Your point of born-BF data is an important piece. Surely as the community move forward, a group of professionals such as you will see to this as it has definitely an implication and influence to establishing future workflow.
George Washington University Libraries
2130 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052