This is exactly my understanding of Bibframe after "attending" the webinar. An RDA profile is needed to connect Bibframe to the granular library metadata cataloged using RDA. A DACS profile is needed to connect Bibframe to things cataloged using DACS. Etc. Bibframe will then become the glue between things described using RDA and things described using DACS or things described using xyz. I think this would be helpful for discovery environments that facet and index things described using different metadata standards. However, I don't quite see how this can be used to exchange metadata. But maybe that's the point. Maybe we won't be asking vendors for bibframe files, maybe we'll just be verifying and creating links between bibframe and library metadata via the RDA profile.
So something like:
publisher metadata > publisher profile > bibframe < RDA profile < library metadata
Or I'm completely misunderstanding something. I do need to re-read the document from November.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Hearn" UMN.EDU>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:22:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Bibframe and translations from MARC
> In a NISO webinar Wednesday Eric Miller suggested that there would
> need to be an RDA profile built on top of Bibframe before many of the
> RDA questions could be addressed. This leads me to wonder if we
> be thinking of Bibframe as an alternative to ANSI Z39.2 and not
> to MARC 21. The work of building an RDA profile for Bibframe could be
> taken up by the new ALA metadata committee that will replace MARBI
> That said, I agree with Kelley that Bibframe needs to get the basic
> relationships right. Even at the Bibframe level, the relationship
> between Work and Instance will need to be more complex than
> only. That should be something profiles built on Bibframe can
> determine, based on how they specify different kinds of work and
> different kinds of instance.
E-Resources Metadata Librarian
Stanford University Libraries
[log in to unmask]