LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  April 2015

BIBFRAME April 2015

Subject:

Re: BIBFRAME implementation

From:

Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:34:09 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (485 lines)

Hey Tom,

sorry for the late reply.

I can share one use case we implemented using Graphity Linked Data
platform for the State and University Library of Denmark.
It was presented at the Semantic Web in Libraries conference last year.

Here's the application online: http://dedanskeaviser.dk
Video of SWIB presentation: http://www.scivee.tv/node/63274
Presentation slides:
https://docs.google.com/a/graphity.org/presentation/d/1o0KCwmJokBo3OgpvCKo_ccxj-LWUS_acaLIxEnBGfOw/edit

Another use case from the Oslo Public Library:
http://digital.deichman.no/blog/2014/07/06/rdf-linked-data-cataloguing-at-oslo-public-library/

Hope it helps.

Martynas
graphityhq.com

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Tom Cramer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Martynas,
>
> So if you question the future of BIBFRAME development, I suggest you
> start reading about RDF and Linked Data use cases first. There are
> quite many of them. They do not even have to be library-related -- the
> domain of the data is secondary.
>
>
> Have you found any particularly pithy use cases that convey the potential
> utility and value of linked data--especially in a library context--that you
> can share? In my experience, these are harder to find (and write) than one
> might think. Any pointers to prior art would be much appreciated.
>
> - Tom
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2015, at 7:01 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> it seems to me that this discussion has long lost focus.
>
> I want therefore to repeat one point that I feel is still missed by
> many: it is RDF and Linked Data that will make the difference, open
> vast new possibilities for flexible data structures, linking, querying
> etc.
>
> BIBFRAME, Schema.org are just RDF vocabularies along many, many
> others. They may be tailored for library data, but it doesn't mean
> they have to be the only ones in use by libraries.
>
> So if you question the future of BIBFRAME development, I suggest you
> start reading about RDF and Linked Data use cases first. There are
> quite many of them. They do not even have to be library-related -- the
> domain of the data is secondary.
>
>
> Martynas
> graphityhq.com
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Erin Merold
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Roy – I was already planning on doing some Googling this morning, and
>
> it really took me down the rabbit hole 0.o But in a good way!
>
>
>
>
> I completely agree – whichever data format allows us to be effective,
>
> relevant, and continue to serve our patrons in the best way possible, we
>
> need to jump on. I’ve been very confused and frustrated at the resistance
>
> I’ve seen and heard not just on this list but from other, older colleagues
>
> as well.
>
>
>
>
> For those of you that are in the same boat as me – fresh out of grad school,
>
> just looking for some information, and really not finding it here – here are
>
> some good resources to get started (although I’m sure you’re already well
>
> aware of some of these):
>
>
>
>
> http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/2013-05.pdf
>
>
>
>
> http://blog.schema.org/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.libhub.org/
>
>
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/
>
>
>
>
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oclc.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fresearch%2Fpresentations%2Fgodby%2Fbibframe-schema-ala2013.ppt&ei=rNMjVdDsF-3gsASb1oHoBg&usg=AFQjCNGT2W6kHz77p63qWXrD7TMMikf6yQ&sig2=ttXVaKXxgCeW_eYWouUGog&bvm=bv.89947451,d.cWc
>
> (this is a powerpoint; I wasn’t able to view it at my work computer so I
>
> don’t know how good it is)
>
>
>
>
> http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2013/charles-a-cutter-and-edward-tufte-coming-to-a-library-near-you-via-bibframe/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/enimsakont/beyond-marc-bibframe-and-the-future-of-bibliographic-data
>
>
>
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/oclcr/aligning-bibframe-with-the-schemabib-extend-model
>
>
>
>
> There is also a webinar being held on May 13th by the ALCTS entitled From
>
> MARC to BIBFRAME: an introduction that sounds extra helpful. I hope that
>
> helps!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Erin Merold
>
>
> Cataloger
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tennant,Roy
>
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 5:21 PM
>
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME implementation
>
>
>
>
> Google "bibframe oclc" for more information. Short answer: as a
>
> bibliographic utility if would be foolish of us to not accept and produce
>
> whichever data formats libraries require to be effective.
>
>
> Roy
>
>
>
>
> From: Erin Merold <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Date: Monday, April 6, 2015 at 9:59 AM
>
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME implementation
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Charley. That makes sense.
>
>
>
>
> Do you know where I could find information on whether or not OCLC or anyone
>
> else like them is looking into/testing/planning on using BIBFRAME at this
>
> point? I know OCLC is still heavily involved in Schema.
>
>
>
>
> Erin Merold
>
>
> Cataloger
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles Pennell
>
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:47 AM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME implementation
>
>
>
>
> There is no doubt that Bibframe is a real entity and that for many libraries
>
> it will replace MARC.  Even more so, if and when it is implemented by OCLC
>
> and other the other national utilities on which most libraries depend.
>
> However, you need to realize that there are still libraries filing catalog
>
> cards, keeping Windows XP running so they can continue to use outdated
>
> bibliographic software, and using FilemakerPro, MSAccess, and other apps to
>
> run their catalogs.  These libraries will never make the leap, since in many
>
> cases, even MARC was never fully implemented.  The ILSs that we have
>
> entrusted to maintain our data in what we think is the current MARC
>
> standard, really only guarantee MARC ingest and output.  What happens to the
>
> data once it enters their system has more to do with Oracle, Postgres,
>
> MySQL, and other databases on which their system is built than it does on
>
> MARC.  The cataloger sees something that resembles MARC (it has fixed and
>
> variable fields, the latter with numeric tags and indicators, on the
>
> screen), but may or may not be MARC in the background.  Certainly, no
>
> cataloger has ever had to directly code the MARC legend! Even what you see
>
> in OCLC is not really MARC, since they early on adopted mnemonic tags to
>
> address the fixed fields rather than force users to count relative byte
>
> positions to get to the value they wanted to enter.
>
>
>
>
> I guess a good question would be, will the cataloger interface change with
>
> Bibframe or will the systems into which we enter data continue to ask us to
>
> submit the usual elements (author, title, publisher, subjects, etc.) and
>
> then place them in their Bibframe context behind the scenes, as they do now
>
> with MARC?  I'm betting that catalogers will never have to directly interact
>
> with the mark-up required by Bibframe, just as they've never really had to
>
> directly interact with MARC.  Cataloger time is simply too valuable to
>
> expend on the markup overhead associated with any bibliographic system.
>
>
>
>
>   Charley
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Erin Merold
>
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi everyone, I think I’m a little confused.
>
>
>
>
> I’m a fairly new cataloger (about 2 years under my belt) and am fresh out of
>
> grad school (graduated spring 2014). I am currently employed at my first
>
> full-time cataloging position, and I really enjoy cataloging. I subscribed
>
> to this list in an attempt to keep updated with cataloging goings-on now
>
> that I am out of grad school.
>
>
>
>
> When I subscribed to this list, I thought it was understood that BIBFRAME
>
> was most definitely going to be implemented – it was just a matter of time
>
> and working out the bugs: hence the list.  Everything on the LOC website
>
> seems to suggest that BIBFRAME is indeed definitely going to replace MARC at
>
> some point in the future. However, from many of the comments I’ve seen on
>
> here, it seems that perhaps this is just a possible option for libraries in
>
> the future – is that the case? Or is BIBFRAME actually going to happen at
>
> some point in the future?
>
>
>
>
> If it IS a sure thing that BIBFRAME will be implemented, then why are we
>
> spending so much time arguing about it? For example, Robert Sanderson said:
>
>
>
>
> So ... please lets focus on constructive suggestions for how to improve the
>
> current Model T version of the ontology we have now, towards that much
>
> sleeker and better performing Ferrari :)
>
>
>
>
> I would think it would be better to focus on constructive suggestions for
>
> improving BIBFRAME, which would be replacing MARC. Unless, of course, I am
>
> mistaken, and that is not actually the case. (Forgive me, I don’t mean to
>
> call anyone in particular out; I just remember this particular quote).
>
>
>
>
> However, I will say that I really, really hope that something comes along
>
> and replaces MARC…Maybe it’s because I’m younger than most of my fellow
>
> catalogers, but it seems to me that MARC, while innovative when it was first
>
> used, is now incredibly outdated. One of the library world’s main concerns
>
> is staying relevant for current and future users, and we can’t do that if
>
> we’re mired down in outdated technology. I realize that funding is a huge
>
> and appropriate concern, but it’s going to be even more so if the world
>
> views the library as unable to catch up with the modern world in which it
>
> exists. Would you vote to continue funding something you viewed as outdated
>
> and unnecessary? For my part, I find myself wrestling with the fixed fields
>
> when cataloging eBooks, audiobooks on CD or digitally recorded, DVDs, or
>
> Blu-Rays. It’s as though MARC itself doesn’t want to acknowledge that
>
> technology beyond analog tape exists. It’s like it’s literally stuck in the
>
> 80’s!
>
>
>
>
> I was thrilled when I stumbled upon the Webcast from November 2013
>
> discussing BIBFRAME
>
> (http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/media/updateforum-nov22-2013.html), because I
>
> thought that finally the library world was taking one giant, painful step
>
> forward towards modernization. The public service side of librarianship has
>
> been running circles around the cataloging side when it comes to
>
> modernization and changing the way we serve our patrons to better meet their
>
> needs.  It’s really sad to see the other half of the library world get left
>
> behind.
>
>
>
>
> So, I guess I’m asking if BIBFRAME is a real thing – is it really going to
>
> be implemented, and replace MARC? Or is that just a possibility that we are
>
> discussing? If it’s just a possibility, are there other possibilities also
>
> being discussed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Erin Merold
>
>
> Cataloger
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Charley Pennell
>
>
> Principal Cataloger
>
>
> NCSU Libraries
>
>
> North Carolina State University
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager