My understanding is that one of the ultimate goals of Bibframe is to be content-model agnostic, flexible enough to use not only RDA, but ultimately DACS (and presumably EAD) as well. There are probably some good brains on the list that will have insight of where things might lead down the road. We live in interesting times!
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Megan McShea
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: BIBFRAME and archival description (was AV study posted)
Thanks, Glenn, for posting this announcement to this list. I'd be very curious in general to hear whether EAD users have been following BIBFRAME developments, and how they see the potential relationship between BIBFRAME and EAD.
My sense is the hierarchical nature of EAD, and the often relative (rather than absolute) component titles used in archival description, makes the exploitation of EAD-encoded description difficult in a linked data environment. However, looking at the model online
(http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/model.html) it seems designed to exploit relationships between entities specifically, so maybe this could lend itself to re-framing hierarchical description for linking.
Then again EAC-CPF, and single-level EAD, seem better suited for linked data in general.
From the BIBFRAME listserv, however, apart from Kate Bowers (way to
represent!) there don't seem to be many participants familiar with the variables and structure of archival description.
I'd be very interested in hearing what people on this list are thinking about this subject.
Archives of American Art