In article <[log in to unmask]>, you wrote:

Thomas Meehan posted:

>Hello. I am preparing a presentation on Bibframe for the autumn and am part=
>icularly interested in getting a general sense of what the community thinks=
> of the Bibframe initiative ...

My concerns are several.  These are my three primary ones:

Theoretically, I am concerned with the move from language neutral
numbers to ambiguous English words as element identifiers.  Remember
the Dublin Core user who entered the person who gave the item to the
library under "Contributor"?  This is of particular concern to us in a
bilingual country, and with multilingual overseas clients.

Pragmatic ally, I am concerned with the investment we have in MARC
based programs and tools.  We offer our clients an AACR2 compatible
export of MARC/RDA records, as well as a UKMARC export for British
libraries still using UKMARC (fewer and fewer).  Perhaps we will
explore a Bibframe export, but continue to use unambiguous MARC number
labels and our MARC based systems for record production?

Financially, a move to Bibframe would create an even greater divide
between have and have not libraries, than did the RDA Toolkit.  We had
one small client which RDA caused to abandon their catalogue, and move
to spreadsheets.  We suspect many small libraries will key from CIP
into their present systems (prpbably minus fixed fields), rather than
attempt to make the move.

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