Dear Bernhard, 
You are right to pose the question, but, of course, it will be "liberally like MARC".  
Regards,  Sally

Sally H. McCallum
Chief, Network Development and Standards Office
Library of Congress,  101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540  USA
[log in to unmask] 
Tel. 1-202-707-5119 -- Fax 1-202-707-0115

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

24.11.2012 11:37, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
>  ... BIBFRAME simply _must_ be able to model RDA data in the necessary 
> granularity and specificity.

That should indeed go without saying. And besides, it ought to be integrated with RDA documentation as well, so as to enable linking in both directions. When using the BIBFRAME documentation, as soon as it will replace MARC, it must be possible to find pertinent rules for any data element, and the other way. That means, BIBFRAME will have to become integrated into the Toolkit. As well as with other rules it will be employed to support. Data entry and editing have long since been in need of enhancements in these regards. Now, finally, the chances should be realized. And I mean, what chances does RDA stand for optimal implementation if there is suboptimal support at the input and editing stage. Or only unaffordable support!

And that raises another question:

Before engaging in heated debates about all sorts of big issues as well as detail, we need to know who will eventually be the owner of BIBFRAME and in what form and under what conditions it will be made available: liberally like MARC, or under a global monopoly licensing scheme like RDA.