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  November 2017

BIBFRAME November 2017

Subject:

Re: Carrier function

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:44:52 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (82 lines)

I see multiple "carrier" functions:

1) exchange of data between cooperating libraries cataloging in RDA
2) data format internal to, or compatible with, systems so that they can
be designed to be sold to the mass of libraries, even those not
cataloging in RDA or using some variant
3) data format for exchange with non-library or non-cooperating partners
4) data format for exposure of data displayed in browsers

For #1 & #2, I'm not sure that I'd recommend RDF. An expanded XML format
(one that didn't include the limitations of MARCXML) might be a better
choice. #3 probably has to be a suite of profiles that vary in their
degree of detail and their serialization. These could be "on the fly"
selections from the more detailed data in #1 and #2, probably through
some API.[1] For #4, much of "data exchange" is beginning to take place
via browser displays, today characterized by schema.org.

These may not be the only or the correct carrier functions, so I would
be interested to hear from others on this topic.

kc
[1] There is a proposal for an RFC that does content negotiation based
on profiles:
https://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Accept--Schema/I-D-accept-schema
This will be taken up by the Dataset eXchange Working Group of W3C:
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page

On 11/14/17 9:31 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
> An important function of the MARC record is as a carrier for the
> exchange of bibliographic data.  In its early days, BIBFRAME was also
> described as a carrier, although this is not often done today.  (The
> need for the exchange of data is acknowledged in the description of the
> BIBFRAME Initiative [1].)  I raise the issue because I consider it
> important when assessing BIBFRAME for use within the library community,
> specifically, within the RDA cataloging community.
> 
> It is obvious we will continue to exchange bib data for quite some
> time.  The current model is to have local databases, both in libraries
> and library suppliers (vendors, publishers, etc.).  When we move to a
> linked data world, we could potentially share one big (virtual) database
> of works, instances, agents, topics, etc., where only holdings
> information would be stored locally.  But this is years away, even if we
> were able to agree on doing it.  For the foreseeable future, then, we
> will exchange bib data among local databases.  If we are encoding RDA
> cataloging data in BIBFRAME, then BIBFRAME becomes our carrier.
> 
> This brings up the floor/ceiling problem I mentioned in an earlier
> post.  Whatever standard we use for a carrier, it will be supported
> widely.  But anything beyond that, anything that supplements the
> carrier, will be implemented spottily.  In effect, any floor standard
> for a carrier becomes a ceiling because only the standard will be
> supported in all systems.  This does not have to be true in theory, but
> in practice it will be.
> 
> A consequence of carrier as ceiling is that we need a carrier that fully
> supports RDA.   We want to exchange all of our RDA data with each other
> to facilitate user success in discovery.  Experience with MARC
> demonstrates that we need a single international standard:  we exchange
> data worldwide and it took MARC 21 to finally achieve this with ease. 
> Recent changes to MARC for RDA also demonstrate how important it is to
> have a carrier that supports RDA.
> 
> In summary, BIBFRAME will necessarily be a carrier, and to do that
> effectively for the library community it must support RDA fully.
> 
>  
> 
> [1] https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/faqs/#q01
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 

-- 
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

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