The point came up earlier that most libraries don't store their data in
relational databases, so this particular tool won't help in those cases.
Somebody else argued that most relational database are unmappable into
anything useful, but I find that hard to believe.




From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC


Then why are we going through all these changes with RDA and Bibframe?
These changes have all been touted as a way to make our data accessible
to others on the Web. This is apparently what D2RQ does so why don't we
fine tune this and we are done? A goodly portion of what I'm reading
here sounds more like attempts to add sources of info outside of our
libraries (e.g. six different name authority sources) rather than the
original facilitation of others coming in to our existing library data.
We're supposed to be breaking down the silos, not building new Googles.
Seems D2RQ already breaks those silos.


Michael Mitchell

Technical Services Librarian

Brazosport College

Lake Jackson, TX

Michael.mitchell at


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC


If your data is a relational database, try D2RQ rather than writing




From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Doug Williams
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC


I have a vision of a future in 5, more likely 10, years where I'll send
my database out for <linked?> authority work and to automagically change
descriptive elements from AACR2 to RDA.  I think this kind of system
will work better for popular, not research, public libraries.  I think
that because popular public libraries have greater turnover of material
and are not preserving older material.  Still, it won't be perfect, but
part of what will drive such a decision is a better record display from
having the consistent data.  I can't see my ILS trying to reconcile 245
$h and 336, 337, 338 to give me the same icon for type of material, and
I can't see BIBFRAME reconciling these different MARC data elements as


But, first we get to see the ugly of my ILS trying to get its SQL for
MARC to line up with its SQL for BIBFRAME. Good times!


Douglas E. Williams

Technical Services Manager

Campbell County Public Library

901 E 6th St.

Newport, KY  41071


Phone:  859-572-5035, ext. 26

Fax:  859-572-5037

Email: [log in to unmask]


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]>

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

	Yes, especially since the bulk of our content at first will be
MARC, transformations from what was in MARC yesterday, today and
tomorrow will be there.


Technically, the end requirement is to provide a format that is a
credible replacement*  for MARC(21)  in an RDA context (appendix M of
the RDA Test report).  However, modeling the semantics of the AACR2
would seem to be a necessary endeavor along the way.


The underlying (conceptual) model of the bibliographic universe ought to
be one that can be mapped to all major systems.  The properties of these
mappings are somewhat complicated. To use a recent subject of discussion
as a simple example, if one starts with MARC-21 data that contains a non
standard textual string and a coded relator, the mapping into a semantic
model might not preserve the non-standard string.  MARC-21 data using a
standard string might map to the same semantic representation.  

Such  mapping would not be invertible, since the non-standard string
would not have been preserved. 


[I have some concerns and suggestions about some of the  work that has
been done and some work that has not been done under the BIBFRAME which
I will explore under separate cover.]