On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Shlomo Sanders <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I would love to hear people's thoughts on a few questions:
>  1. How mature do you think the  BIBFRAME model will be 1 year from today?

Bibframe at the moment lacks certain areas (such as serials, articles,
research data sets, continuing resources, holdings, acquisitions, services)
and it does not offer many new opportunities yet (for example, integrating
e-journals, e-books into electronic supply chains and library online
services). I hope this will change in the next years when Bibframe will be
adopted by the national libraries and the available Bibframe data
collections will grow. The current focus is on "we know how we did it in
MARC, now can we do the same thing in Bibframe?". There are several trends
Bibframe may follow: tighter integration with existing ILS technologies, or
substantial contributions to new Linked Data platforms.

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

Bibframe was never intended as an interchange format and I do not think we
need another interchange format for doing the same over and over again.
With Linked Data, the real question is: what data can be linked online over
the web, and what has still to be moved over the wire from library to
library? How can we build new forms of union catalogs? How can libraries
cooperate with interested communities (publishers, authors, museums,
archives, research organizations) to exchange and reuse data sets? How can
we establish improved library services by using Bibframe?

>  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?

Bibframe's Linked Data model is more powerful than MARC. For traditional
applications, MARC may be wrapped into Bibframe in the near future. But
nobody wants to wrap old data in new formats just for fun. It depends on
decisions, what new services must be implemented and what has to be
changed. If catalogers still want to view MARC record field codes for
efficient cataloging, there is not much justification for implementing
Bibframe in a new cataloging module. But if publishers or authors will
offer more Linked Data sets for their publications getting integrated into
library catalogs, there is no good answer by using MARC. So, if new
services with Linked Data have to be built, Bibframe may be an option, and
it's not always a question of migration.

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

I think RDA is for cataloging, not Bibframe? It's possible that librarians
want to understand how to decipher various Bibframe data sets, dereference
URIs to URLs, and follow links on the web. Most Bibframe modeling details
will be hidden behind web UIs and mouse clicks.