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  May 2017

BIBFRAME May 2017

Subject:

Re: Requiem pour BIBFRAME?

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 25 May 2017 09:29:34 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

On 5/25/17 8:33 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> Karen,
> 
> 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.

Lars, thanks. My reading of BIBFRAME is not that it is a transportation
format, but is being implemented as an actual systems format. If I'm
wrong about that, I'd love to hear from implementers on their view.

That said, I've generally thought of linked data as a way of interacting
in the public data space, not necessarily as an internal data view,
although there is no reason it could not also be the latter. I think
OCLC shows us this with their  use of schema.org.

US MARC doesn't have the ability that UniMARC (and various local
versions) seem to have to directly connect, for example, a series with
the series members. (I can't find an open copy of the UniMARC standard
so I'm going on rumor here.) As UniMARC seems to show, that could be
possible without a move to RDF, but few (if any?) of US MARC systems are
designed to implement such links. Obviously one doesn't need to move to
RDF to get links between bibliographic records, but I suppose it makes
sense, if you are going to require a significant system overhaul, to go
with the latest technology. Personally, I'd prefer it if there were
multiple proposals for a future bibliographic data format rather than
just one.

> 
>> 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.

Yes, LRM is about expressing links (in part). But as most proposed
bibliographic models aren't actually implementing the concepts in the
FRBR model, it seems unlikely that they will implement the concepts in
FRBR-LRM. Having read through FRBR-LRM, I actually have some intense
questions about what is proposed there, but no place to ask those
questions. Some of the linking that they propose makes no sense to me.
And while both FRBR and FRBR-LRM are presented as conceptual models,
they also provide some fairly detailed technical specifications, which
blurs the line between concepts and implementation.

Note: Although it may look like BIBFRAME is "FRBR-ish" I would argue
that if FRBR had never been published, BIBFRAME might look very much
like it does today because the bibliographic data model is pretty
obvious - content, carrier, agents, topics. Add the data needed for
inventory purposes and you have the data concepts that can be found in
nearly any bibliographic product of the last century and a half.

kc

> 
> Best,
> 
> Lars
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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

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