Yes, in RDF no need for records. But what about to catalogue a book.

How many triples do the cataloguer have in mind? How many data models. Cataloguing is easier if you think in a record (and some distilled rules) than in a lot of triples (much more triples if you have to think in different data models). Sorry if I'am not expressing that properly. Iam very confused about so many harmonization (CRM to FRBR, FRBRoo to EDM, Bibframe to CRM, CRM to EAD...) It seems like the MARC Harmonization of the end of 90's. I understand them more or less, not always, but I am not able to explain this to a cataloguer without skills in RDF, that are majority. Yes, I suppose the software will do.

But still the problem is how to produce so many 'records' or 'triples' to millions of resources published every year (digital or not digital).The idea of record is something that still will remain a long time, at least while the software allow to make all the triples that a book (or a resource) need to have a good representation. Are triples soustainable for cataloguing?

How to translate triples to a simple (or enough simple) data entry. It is not the same to treat an RDF file (you can convert to whatever if you are experienced), than cataloguing. The old data entry. I'am affraid cataloguing will became slow, difficult and more unsustainable than now. During a lot of years it was discussed if cataloguing was sustainable. I think that if RDF, no matter which schema or model, is not translated to a good data entry (a record), we will have a lot of bad descriptions or incomplete representations of resources (whatever resource means, that I'm not very sure).

Librarians are striving to participate in the world of open data. Now we have to produce triples useful for everyone, but will be sufficiently useful for librarians? There are many millions of data to loss security in what we are doing.

No need for records? What for is DESCRIBE if to create 'a record' with all the triples related with a resource.


De: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [[log in to unmask]] En nombre de Young,Jeff (OR) [[log in to unmask]]
Enviado el: lunes, 06 de mayo de 2013 20:23
Para: [log in to unmask]
Asunto: Re: [BIBFRAME] Annotations (Was: Documents and improvements)

I agree, no need for “records” going forward.

Relational databases were 1st conceptualized back in 1969. Granted, they had limited scalability, which justified libraries pretty much ignoring them in favor of “records” for the next 40 years. Those limits are gone now, though, thanks to Linked Data. It’s time to move on.


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Murray, Ronald
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Annotations (Was: Documents and improvements)

No need for “records,” going forward:

It may (I hope) be more easily translatable to the open world, but libraries need a sharable data format that replaces the current record format. So I do think that it is appropriate to *also* think of BIBFRAME as a record, and that some of its "record-ness" may remain within a library silo because it is only relevant there. A primary use case for library metadata is the sharing of descriptions of published materials that make up the inventories of library holdings, and are key to the management functions of library systems (acquisitions, collection development, circulation). These descriptions are indeed "records" regardless of the technology being used to hold the metadata. The soon-to-be-current cataloging rules separate "description" and "access." To my mind, the "access" part is most interesting as linked data, while the "description" part functions as a bound package (c.f. ISBD as the data "core").

Life Before Data – While RDF is designed to generate graph-like data structures, that does not mean that RDF has articulated graph theory in its entirety. For example, within the first three pages of Dénes König’s (1935) textbook* on graph theory, he defines graphs and subgraphs.

But subgraphs are apparently what we have been discussing all along. Starting with the notion of a single (disconnected) global graph offered up by the W3C, we can refine that notion to include:

 *   Subgraphs of the global graph that are defined and enhanced by libraries, archives, etc., in pursuit of their missions.

 *   Subgraphs within the library subgraph that represent resource descriptions currently referred to by the implementation-oriented term “record.”

 *   Subgraphs within the above subgraph that partition a resource description into logically/practically-motivated groupings (e.g. WEMI, EAD, etc.).

 *   Subgraphs of the great global graph that are connected to library defined subgraphs, and provide information generated by external communities of description.

Graph/subgraph thinking lends itself to typing and subtyping for the tidy-minded, and can invoke familiar (conceptual and implementable) strategies for graph-like resource description assembly, disassembly, positioning, traversal, insertion, extraction, etc.

Life As Data – Now we can think about how well RDA and other schemes support subgraph creation and use.


König’s textbook – the first in its field:

eng: (p. 1-3)


Ron Murray

Dans les champs de l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés. Louis Pasteur. Lille, 1854.

“Opinions expressed are those of the author, and are not official statements of the Library of Congress."