 |
 |
07.01.2013 20:51, Karen Coyle: > > When I saw your posts (both excellent, BTW) I was hoping that these > would stir discussion. I must admit that the lack of response is > puzzling. I whole-heartedly agree that the lack of discussion and the > vagueness of the direction of BIBFRAME make it very hard to get a mental > foot-hold on the whole thing. > May that not indeed be because most of us are mentally over-exerted from the onslaught of new concepts, ideas, suggestions, materials and so further, touching on innumerable open issues and built on as many untested assumptions, and all that without at least some sketch of a tangible and coherent scheme or design one could imagine as becoming a part of one's everyday working environment? > I would be willing to give comments on the examples, or to create more > examples, if the interest is there. In absence of that it doesn't make > much sense to spend time on this. I would say something pithy about > beating a dead horse, but at the moment I can't even find the horse! > Nor any rider. Why is it that the BIBFRAME makers and shakers are silent in this forum? Why can they not shed more light on the dark matter being speculated about here, and dissolve fears that one's own particular environment might soon be obliterated by developments one will not be able to follow? And how much confidence is there really now in this profession that a brave new world will emerge, any time soon after all these years, from the dense mist that it is still enshrouded in? In short: is the direction of BIBFRAME clear to anyone at all? B.Eversberg