I'm a bit late to this party but want to follow up on one point that 
Jörg raises that always seems to me to be a bit of an elephant in the room:

On 11/8/13 9:01 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>     4. How do you feel about doing original cataloging in the BIBFRAME
>     model?
>
> I think RDA is for cataloging, not Bibframe? ...

Our institution uses RDA to catalog but then we stuff the resulting 
description into MARC which is what our catalog (Voyager) supports. My 
understanding is that this is lossy. BIBFRAME offers the benefits of 
linked data but is based on a simpler model than RDA. So where does this 
leave the community in a few years? Will some places move to adopt 
divergent new models/formats as native and then crosswalk (with 
associated problems, lossiness) to others for interoperability?

Cheers,
Simeon