Print

Print


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>