Ross Singer said:

>I can't speak for Bibframe directly, but in the case, say, of RDA,
>the argument against using existing vocabularies vs. rolling your own
>and aligning them is that you can't control the fate of vocabularies
>you don't own.
ISBD is an international library standard over which Anglo librarians
have increasing influence.  

ISBD element names should have been used by Bibframe.

This is just as true for RDA as for Bibframe.  A Canadian was chair of
the Working Group which created Area 0.  I see *no* excuse for RDA not
adopting the excellent ISBD Area 0 content and media terms.

Not only is "electronic" superior to "computer" (who thinks of their
Kobo or Kindle as a computer?), but "image (moving)" and  cartographic
treatment are far better for display than the over long RDA phrases.  
Those well wrought terms have been around since 2009.

Too many wheels which don't roll well have been reinvented.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________