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  February 2017

BIBFRAME February 2017

Subject:

Re: Failure

From:

Jeff Edmunds <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:30:43 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (107 lines)

All,

First, thanks to everyone--especially Karen, Jörg, Amanda, and Amber--
for schooling me so thoroughly about current BIBFRAME thinking and 
initiatives. My deliberately provocative initial email has elicited the 
thoughtful responses I had hoped for.

While I can’t respond point-by-point to everyone, I wanted to follow-up 
briefly, beginning at the “end,” so to speak, with the message sent by 
Sharon this morning, in which she says:

“The whole point of RDA and BIBFRAME is moving to Linked Data community 
for better information retrieval and connectivity on the Internet.”

This, I think, we can all agree on.

What troubles me (and this will be a major thrust of my presentation) is 
the vast disconnect I see between two fundamentally different kinds of 
discovery, or, if you prefer, use cases for the retrieval and use of 
information.

As someone who has worked in an academic research library as (mostly) a 
cataloger for 27+ years, I realize that, with the dawning of the 
Internet age, our collections have become, over time, simultaneously 
more discoverable and less accessible. There has been an enormous shift 
from print to electronic, and whereas anyone can walk in off the street, 
discover, and access our print content (though not everyone can check it 
out), our electronic content, for which we spend millions of dollars 
every year (not to mention the costs of maintaining it) is accessible 
ONLY to patrons affiliated with our university (with a few minor 
exceptions). As our collections have moved online, we have unwittingly 
contributed to the de-democratization of information.

Let’s imagine a time in the (near?) future in which BIBFRAME and Linked 
Data principles have been fully embraced and implemented by the library 
community (as well as others); systems have been built and tweaked to 
accommodate the new data models and linkages. 

Will the content discoverable in the new ecosystem be accessible to 
users? Or will they be continually crashing into firewalls?

Finally, I would like to mention what I think is perhaps the most 
extensive and thorough implementation of linked data in the 
libraries/archives context: data.bnf.fr, created by the Bibliothèque 
nationale de France. I mention it for a couple of reasons: 1) it 
leverages existing UNIMARC data (FRBRized using software written 
specifically for that purpose) and 2) the BnF--and French libraries in 
general--have not adopted RDA. 

Why have they not adopted RDA? Quoting http://www.transition-
bibliographique.fr/enjeux/position-francaise-rda/:

“l’abandon pur et simple des normes actuelles de catalogage françaises 
pour ce nouveau code de catalogage international s’avérerait coûteux, 
contre-productif, voire constituerait une régression."

[purely and simply abandoning current French cataloging standards for 
this new international cataloging code would be costly, counter-
productive, and would even constitute a regression.]

Further on, they note:

“Adopter RDA en l’état constituerait donc une régression par rapport à 
ce qui fait la force des grands catalogues français, à savoir 
précisément la gestion de ces liens."

[Adopting RDA as-is would therefore constitute a regression with respect 
to the strong point of the large French catalogs, to wit—the management 
of these links.]

The links in question are the ARKs connecting their bibliographic 
records with their authority records. They have effectively been using a 
form of linked data for 40 years.

[Two brief asides: for a skeptical view of RDA, see Karen Coyle and 
Diane Hillman’s opinion in D-Lib Magazine from a decade ago (!): 
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/coyle/01coyle.html?
ref=SaglikAlani.Com; also, Amber, to respond to your question about 
failure of many libraries to adopt RDA—there was a recent straw poll on 
AUTOCAT, with the results clearly showing that many smaller libraries 
had neither the time, the resources, nor the will to move from AACR2 to 
RDA.]

BUT, and this is a major point (now quoting Gildas Illien, formerly at 
the BnF and now at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle):

“Data.bnf.fr does not mean to replace the existing catalogs and other 
silos it exploits, but to provide some ‘glue’ between them.”

In other words, at least in the case of data.bnf.fr, neither the non-
RDA, UNIMARC-based catalog (http://catalogue.bnf.fr/index.do) nor the 
BnF’s silo for digitized collections (http://gallica.bnf.fr/) goes away 
as a result of the implementation of Linked Data.

This concerns me because cataloging/metadata departments, at least in US 
academic libraries, are losing resources to other initiatives, even as 
they are being asked to create and maintain metadata not only for 
catalogs, discovery layers, digital repositories, and institutional 
repositories, but now, also, for Linked Data projects.

Whence some of my skepticism of RDA, BIBFRAME, and Linked Data more 
broadly. Too many generals, too few foot soldiers. 

Thanks again,

Jeff

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

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