Print

Print


Jeremy,

I would hope that you would post this question to some lists where 
catalogers are active - I'd suggest RDA-L and AUTOCAT.

I find particularly interesting the fact that at ALA this weekend there 
will be discussions of making highly detailed modifications to the MARC 
record [1]  (which already has some 1400 data elements) at the same time 
that BIBFRAME is proposing a much simpler bibliographic view. The 
requests for those MARC additions come generally from the cataloger 
community, although some also come from vendors.

Of course, BIBFRAME is new and could evolve to include all of the MARC 
data elements. This could be done through profiles, or BIBFRAME could 
become a monolithic standard that parallels MARC. :-(

Nowhere, however, do a see a serious discussion in the library data 
creation community of use cases and functional requirements. (And, 
believe me, FRBR does not provide this.) Many of the elements that have 
been added to MARC over the years (after taking many hours of discussion 
within the MARC committee) rarely appear in actual library data. Yet 
more continue to be added. Where are we headed? Why? What is the result 
we seek?

I think our big question today is not what format we will use for our 
data, but what methods we will use for developing our data standard. You 
mention that BIBFRAME is being developed top down. The original MARC 
development was done similarly, but has since defined a mechanism to 
solicit requests from a broader community and to engage with 
representatives of cataloging committees with official ALA standing. 
Unlike BIBFRAME, though, there is no testing of the changes to MARC, no 
code is written that would provide a proof of concept of the changes 
being made to the standard. I've been at that table and really everyone 
just "guesses" that someone might be able to implement the change to get 
the desired result. All too often, the changes turn out to not work as 
intended, or they could work but they serve such a small segment of the 
community that library systems vendors see no return from their 
implementation.

Our entire development process is broken. We can't expect to turn out 
viable data standards in this way.

kc

[1] http://loc.gov/marc/mac/an2014_age.html, e.g. " Defining New Field 
388 for Time Period of Creation Terms in the MARC 21 Authority and 
Bibliographic Formats"

On 6/25/14, 6:13 AM, Jeremy Goldstein wrote:
> The development of bibframe certainly has some promise, and in theory 
> migrating the structure of our databases to such a form is long 
> overdue.  However, I see it as having the same sort of implementation 
> problems that have beset RDA.
>
> It's being developed in a top down way such that it is being imposed 
> upon the bibliographic community without a great deal of involvement 
> from the rank and file catalogers.  And to my knowledge there has yet 
> to be any serious investment in the project from any ILS vendors. 
>  Without some sense that bibframe will actually become practical to 
> use for a standard public library it is going to have a hard time 
> launching successfully.
>
> Jeremy Goldstein
> Supervisor of Resource Management
> Minuteman Library Network
> 508-655-8008 ext.222
> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Minuteman-Library-Network/10540764811> 
> <https://www.pinterest.com/minlibnet/> <https://twitter.com/MinLibNet>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Meehan, Thomas <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     Hello. I am preparing a presentation on Bibframe for the autumn
>     and am particularly interested in getting a general sense of what
>     the community thinks of the Bibframe initiative and, in
>     particular, how people see it developing and being implemented in
>     the future. I would love to hear any views on this, especially
>     from a wide section of the community (cataloguers, systems people,
>     vendors, those working with linked data already, etc.). If you
>     prefer, please feel free to contact me off-list or point me at
>     write-ups (e.g. blog posts) that express your views. I would be
>     very happy to receive even a brief indication of your thoughts.
>
>     I will treat any personal communications as confidential and will
>     not quote from them without permission.
>
>     Many thanks,
>
>
>     Tom
>
>     ---
>
>     Thomas Meehan
>
>     Head of Current Cataloguing
>
>     Library Services
>
>     University College London
>
>     Gower Street
>
>     London WC1E 6BT
>
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet