Hello, 1. How mature do you think the BIBFRAME model will be 1 year from today? That's hard to say. Development is lean, and seems to be responsive, so I think there's promise that significant progress will be made. However, I think we're making the mistake of trying to pre-configure for every possible circumstance. I'm also uncertain that the approach (creating a vocabulary entirely from scratch) is the best one, so I'm not sure it will really catch on. I worry that people who are interested in linked data won't pick up the BIBFRAME model, and those who would be most likely to follow LOC's lead aren't that interested in linked data. 2. Do you think it is practice to use BIBFRAME as RDF as the interchange format (instead of MARC)? I wonder how much an "interchange" format will really be needed? I think the big idea is getting away from this concept of having a record that describes an item, so if we're not really working with records, what are we exchanging? If our metadata models changed the way I would like them to, an interchange format wouldn't be as necessary as having an effective way to search for metadata elements, and to make statements about resources that other people can search in turn. 3. How do you feel about migration of all your existing BIBs or at least migration on the fly of MARC records being updated and of MARC records ingested from external sources? I'd like to see MARC records being migrated to RDF as a whole. At least very least, it would be great if there was a way for the metadata to represented as RDF alongside their representation as MARC. 4. How do you feel about doing original cataloging in the BIBFRAME model? In my opinion, that is the goal. If not in BIBFRAME, at least in RDF. I agree with Karen, as well, that the point is not to drag everything about MARC into a new serialization. I think attempting to codify every nook and cranny of MARC into BIBFRAME is part of what could hold the project back. Laura On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Nov 8, 2013 9:02 AM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > Bibframe's Linked Data model is more powerful than MARC. > > Semantic technology and linked data can indeed be more expressive than > MARC. Unfortunately, at the current published drafts of bibframe contain > some accidental commitments that limit it to being at most as expressive as > MARC or other record oriented formats. > > These commitments are not essential, and by identifying what they are, and > how different approaches can avoid some of the limitations entailed in the > current model. > > I have been working on set of detailed notes; with the revival of the > discussion I will post the introduction/overview when I get to a real > keyboard > > Simon > -- Laura Krier laurapants.com<http://laurapants.com/?utm_source=email_sig&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email>