I agree about living in interesting times. Many consequences for the infrastructure have to be analyzed. Z39.50 is able to exchange all kinds of data, but application software and update routines (search indexes etc.) have to be changed to handle the new data model. 

By the way! In Denmark the library infrastructure is heavily based on Z39.50, not only for search and retrieve, but also for ILL. It is working perfectly, but in 2011 we realized, that the worlds Z39.50 knowhow was limited to a tiny group of persons. DanZIG, originally forum for Z39.50 implementation, but now dealing with infrastructure in general, then decided to start looking for alternatives/supplements to Z39.50. We are not in a hurry, but try to be a step ahead.

Best regards,

Tommy Schomacker
Danish Bibliographic Centre, DBC
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne af Magnus Enger
Sendt: 31. januar 2013 22:18
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: [BIBFRAME] Z39.50

On 31 January 2013 19:11, Mitchell, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Perhaps I was too brief. Right now if I need a MARC record for what I'm cataloging I can use Z39.50 software to find it and transfer it to my local system. In fact I can do a batch of downloads at one time. How will I do that with BibFrame? Copy/download the BibFrame "record" like a Web page? One at a time? Sorry if this is too simplistic a question.

It's an excellent question!

Personally, I think Z39.50 needs to go to the trash heap of history, together with MARC, ISO 2709, punctuation in data elements, SIP2 and other remnants of an era that is long gone by outside of "library technology".

The good news is that RDF/Semantic Data are born to be shared, through things like SPARQL and a host of different exchange/serialization formats. So do not worry, the new tools that will emerge will do what you want, one way or another, and hopefully better than the current tools.

The question does raise another interesting problem though: As far as I can tell, moving from MARC to RDF should mean that the concept of the "record" as an island unto itself is dead - the future is built up of descriptions of "things" that are linked to each other, in interesting ways. One challenge might be: If we want to "copy" a description of a "thing", how far should we follow the links it is involved in? When have we harvested enough of the context to have a good description of the "thing"?

We live in interesting times! ;-)

Best regards,
Magnus Enger