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://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
