Shlomo asked:

> 1. How mature do you think the  BIBFRAME model will be 1 year from today?

I've no idea, and I suspect no one else has either.

> 2. Do you think it is practice to use BIBFRAME as RDF as the interchange 
>format (instead of MARC)?

Not now.

> 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?

Not yet.  We don't know the final form of Bibframe, and ILS are not ready
to cope.

>4. How do you feel about doing original cataloging in the BIBFRAME model?

We are creating manifestation records in MARC21, and will continue to do so
unless/until both Bibframe and ILS are ready, and the national cataloguing 
agencies adopt it.

Also, Bibframe does not make the work/expression distinction, so RDA's
WEMI arrangement of rules is as out of step with Bibframe as with
MARC.  I don't see any improvement.

UTLAS had linked data with MARC in 1979.  Moving to linked data does
not require leaving MARC.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________