It occurs to me that some quotes from the RDF primer <> and Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Data Model <> are relevant:

Concepts and abstract data model:

"To facilitate operation at Internet scale, RDF is an open-world framework that allows anyone to make statements about any resource. In general, it is not assumed that complete information about any resource is available. RDF does not prevent anyone from making assertions that are nonsensical or inconsistent with other statements, or the world as people see it. Designers of applications that use RDF should be aware of this and may design their applications to tolerate incomplete or inconsistent sources of information."


"These examples also illustrate one of the basic architectural principles of the Web, which is that anyone should be able to freely add information about an existing resource, using any vocabulary they please"
"…true not only for situations like this one, in which one organization is rating or commenting on a resource defined by another, but also for situations in which the original definer of a resource (or anyone else) wishes to amplify the description of that resource by providing additional information about it"
"…anyone can create URIs to refer to things they do not own, just as in ordinary language anyone can use whatever name they like for things they do not own"

Do we assume that BIBFRAME can circumvent open-worldness as a closed domaim? Maintaining this line ignores the fundamental principle of RDF. An issue with a bounded playpen is that terms will be applied idiosyncratically to cope with local use cases, resulting in the local dialects we see in MARC. 

Since the base model for BIBFRAME is RDF, there is indeed nothing to stop an implementer applying their own terms from other namespaces anyway; this actually lessens the likelihood that a BIBFRAME term will be applied idiosyncratically as it is as easy to apply a specific local term from another namespace. RDF's open-world model is designed to scale to cope with this very human tendency. Let's stick with that: BIBFRAME can control itself, but not expect to exist alone.

Rurik Thomas Greenall
NTNU University Library | NTNU Universitetsbiblioteket
[log in to unmask]

On May 22, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Trail, Nate wrote:

I think when you start reusing existing properties, you're relying on them being around for the long haul, and requiring systems that consume them to be aware of all the multiple namespaces. In all cases, I can't see us (the library community) agreeing that the way foaf or dc (or whatever) uses a term really matches what we're talking about.
In some ways, I think here is a case  for annotations; I could see people making assertions that x Work has some y relationship to z, and Bibframe could say okay, stick that in an annotation and a system can use it or not.
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Laura Krier
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was and the "lightweight abstraction layer")
On May 22, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
re: re-using other properties

+1 but feel this ship has already sailed - previous replies have been clear that BIBFRAME/LoC want to control the namespace.
I'm not sure we should let this one go quite so easily. Not re-using existing properties reducing a lot of the benefit and purpose of using a linked data model in the first place. I haven't seen any reasoning from LoC that I agree with about why they are making this decision. And I think they've been very open to community opinion and input to date. 
Does anyone else agree that this might be worth pushing harder against? 

Laura Krier
Metadata Analyst
California Digital Library