Thanks for this excellent paper. Our BIBFRAME group at Stanford
discussed it yesterday. We had quite a lengthy discussion and I'm
hoping others will send in their comments as well, we all had different
We all agreed that elevating the concept of Event in BIBFRAME is
needed. Up until now, the focus has been on the conversion of MARC to
BIBFRAME for more traditional library resources. As we move beyond them
into more complex media and resources that we have never attempted to
"catalog" before, the concept of event becomes more and more important.
It also brings BIBFRAME in line with other models such as EDM that allow
for an object-centric or event-centric approach. My own comments are on
bf:Content - A fascinating concept but I have to admit I hate the name,
lol. Content is a very loaded term. At first I wondered if bf:Content
was meant merely to be a shell for joining bf:Work and bf:Event and
linking to bf:Instance. I see this isn't true, though. On p. 42: By
allowing these properties to be used with bf:Content, catalogers can
describe the original intention/characteristics of the content, even if
that is quite different from the characteristics of an instance in the
collection." This thought certainly resonated with me. I'm still
frustrated by the inability of linking a bf:Work to an authority
although I understand the reason. If you consider the authority as
representing the work itself, not just a controlled string for it, it is
the natural home for "the original intention/characteristics of the
content." Maybe bf:Content could serve this purpose as well?
bf:Instance - This may be my misunderstanding, but I have undestood that
each bf:Work in a resource does not have it's own bf:Instance, there is
only one for the resource as a whole. I still struggle with this a
bit. Although I'm not sure the paper recommends this, it does seem to
articulate cases in which it would be valuable to record separate
instance data for different parts of a collective resource.
BIBFRAME extensions - I think the paper highlights the need to extend
BIBFRAME to cover various types of resources. I disagree slightly with
the technique, though. I'd prefer seeing the BIBFRAME vocabulary remain
as simple as possible and, when extensions are needed, to make use of
other established vocabularies as opposed to incorporating them as part
of the BIBFRAME vocabulary. If they were absorbed, the resultant
behemoth would soon become impossible to manage and keep in synch with
whatever vocabulary it was derived from.
Sequences - Another critical concept difficult to express in BIBFRAME.
I agree that this is an area that needs to be resolved in general.
Philip E. Schreur
Head, Metadata Department