I have had that feeling all through these discussions. At:

http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-usecases

only six out of fifteen use cases mention library patrons (by my count), so I am inclined to think that the answer to that second question may in fact be: library catalogers and their colleagues.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Shlomo Sanders <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> +1
> Every once in a while I GRT the feeling that there isn't agreement on "What we want to do with the data". The same goes for "Who is this representation intended for".
>
> Thanks,
> Shlomo
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 27, 2014, at 17:07, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/14, 3:41 AM, Thomas Berger wrote:
>>> With XML documents there was a distinction between data centric
>>> and document centric approaches, often characterized by the
>>> permission of "mixed content". Traditional bibliographic
>>> records somehow redundantly follow both approaches, i.e. you
>>> have "data" in MARC 100 and 700 and the same facts recorded again
>>> as parts of the text in 245$c. Especially in cases where the
>>> redundancy is not very high, i.e. when the form recorded in
>>> the statement of responsibility grossly deviates from the form
>>> given in the heading one would wish for additional markup
>>> linking the substring in the SoR with the heading or - like TEI does -
>>> embedding heading information in markup distinguishing the name
>>> in the SoR.
>>>
>>> Now RDF (with string data types) enforces a strict data-centric
>>> view on our bibliographic situation which even in circumstances
>>> we usually consider as "pure data" fails to provide appropriate
>>> descriptions.
>>
>> As I said earlier in this thread:
>>
>> 3. I'm not convinced that it makes sense to convert the entire document that is a "bibliographic description" to RDF, any more than I would want to convert an entire web page to RDF. RDF was designed to surface the data hidden in web pages, not to turn the entire web into triples.
>>
>> There are aspects of our data that are document-like, and I see no reason to force these into RDF if they don't fit comfortably. We need to turn the question around, from "How do I fit this into RDF?" to "What do I want to do with this data?" If we wish to provide users with notes about the resource, reviews, or handy hints as to where to find it on the library shelves, there's no reason that these have to be in RDF. If they are, it is for the convenience of processing, not because they result in useful RDF (which is, as you say, designed for linkable data).
>>
>> At the same time, I question the need to carry forward certain practices, like reversing author names to the comma-delimited form, which exists solely to support alphabetical order [1]. We (will) have an identifier for the person, and we can have any number of display forms. We need to re-think our data for the web, not try to turn the web into a card catalog.
>>
>> kc
>> [1] Where I question alphabetical order: http://kcoyle.net/presentations/thinkDiff.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet