"Errant standards"? Do you even know what Linked Data and RDF is?
At the core, RDF provides a generic, domain-agnostic, Web-native data
model with a zero-cost merge. It is future-proof: you are guaranteed
to be able to convert, interlink and merge your (bibliographic) data
with any ther RDF dataset, and publish it on the web Neither MARC nor
RDBMS nor XML have these features built-in.
On top of that you get a powerful query language SPARQL that allows
you to cross-query these datasets (either in a local store or in a
federated fashion) and get answers to questions you couldn't even ask
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Michael Ayres <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> But of what value is this so-called ‘Linked Data community’ for MY
> community? Does direct connection of my local bibliographic records to the
> internet really (REALLY) equate with better information retrieval for my
> community? Why should I follow errant standards that do not bestow any
> perceivable benefit over my current tried-and-true standards—especially when
> there is a very high, unaffordable cost involved? These are some of the
> questions that direct the resistance of so many of us to buying into the
> ‘snake oil’ of RDA and BIBFRAME.
> (Really not trying to stir up this battle once again.)
> Just two cents more—other side of the coin,
> Michael Ayres | Technical Services Manager
> City of Irving l Irving Public Library System
> 801 W. Irving Blvd., Irving, TX 75060
> P: (972) 721-2764 F: (972) 721-2329
> [log in to unmask] | CityofIrving.org
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of FunnyFace Internet
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:06 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Failure
> The whole point of RDA and BIBFRAME is moving to Linked Data community for
> better information retrieval and connectivity on the Internet. During the
> transitional period, some libraries follow MARC, and some follow BIBFRAME.
> But eventually we all should follow the same standards - RDA and BIBFRAME.
> If each library follows different standards as a long term plan, do we lose
> the original purpose of RDA and BIBFRAME?
> BIBFRAME is a very complex thing to develop. It is not just a piece of
> software, but vocabularies and classes. Cataloging librarians are very
> meticulous (the most meticulous type of librarians) and hard to please.
> BiBFRAME has to become perfect through use and continuous effort. It will
> never work in a vacuum like now. Someone has to start using it. There is no
> way turning back at this point.
> Just two cents.
> Sharon/Rider University