This is a very valid fear. The most valuable goal in this situation might be to cover the use cases which obtain basic agreement on their likelihood and the design by which to support them, but in such a way as to provide for extension. This is why I'm a fan of Rob Sanderson's approach which trades out relationships for types. That is typically (pun thoroughly intended!) a more extensible style of design for a model like Bibframe.
The University of Virginia Library
On Jul 31, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Kevin Ford <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree about it being overkill, and I'm now wondering how realistic, and common, some of these use cases are. I'm not against uncommon use cases, but in re-reading all of this just now I started feeling like the agenda was being set by uncommon use cases. In reviewing the above, and looking at the BF Vocabulary, I'm not clear about the intent of titleSource.