On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Leif Andresen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> We have in a Danish informal BIBFRAME study group debated the discussion at the BIBFRAME list. This mail is a reaction on statements about use of BIBFRAME as format for exchange of bibliographic data. We think it is important to refresh the scope of a bibliographic format as BIBFRAME.
> It is important to be aware that BIBFRAME shall function in different environments:
> - as data format for an individual library on it is own
> - as data format for an individual library with reuse from other libraries (copy cataloguing)
> - as data format for an individual library with extensive linking to other resources
> - as data format for exchange of bibliographic information (all BIBFRAME classes)
> And combinations of these.
> Statement: The local library systems and the heavy cloud based systems can have internal formats, but BIBFRAME must have the capacity to function as an internal system format.
> Statement: BIBFRAME is not only a replacement of MARC21. BIBFRAME must be the replacement of both specifications/standards for content formats (as MARC21, danMARC2, UNIMARC etc.) and for carrier format (as ISO 2709 Format for information exchange and ISO 25577 MarcXchange (and implementations of MarcXchange as MARCXML for MARC21))
> Statement: Our basic expectation is that BIBFRAME is the next format, which shall replace MARC - and in some years shall take over. We expect a more common solution and not many different formats as we have with the MARC formats. Co-existence of MARC and BIBFRAME will only be the case in some years.
Thanks Leif for the summary. Agreed on all counts.
President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"