On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 3:25 PM, Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum wrote:
> Yes, it looks like BnF has no need of BIBFRAME, which is fine. What is
> interesting is WHY they have no need of BF - which is that they already
> have linking. Which we do not.
This is extremely interesting. It never occured to me that someone could implement BIBFRAME in order to _get_ linking. To me BIBFRAME (like MARC or any other transportation format) is a way of transporting the data you have. How to get that data is to me a totally different (perhaps even orthogonal) problem.
> So the question is not BF or not BF, but
> would our catalogs benefit from linking? And if the answer is yes, then
> how do we want to achieve that? Clearly it can be achieved in ways other
> than migrating to BIBFRAME, so we should be looking at all of the options.
> I don't know what the LRM has to do with this.
LRM is about expressing links, too. We should keep in mind, though, that LRM (like FRBR or CIDOC-CRM) is a _conceptual_ model, whereas BIBFRAME is an _implementation_ model.