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.
Annotations:rdfs:comment "This class comprises aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing that are assembled and maintained (“curated” and “preserved,” in museological terminology) by one or more instances of E39 Actor over time for a specific purpose and audience, and according to a particular collection development plan.Items may be added or removed from an E78 Collection in pursuit of this plan. This class should not be confused with the E39 Actor maintaining the E78 Collection often referred to with the name of the E78 Collection (e.g. “The Wallace Collection decided…”).Collective objects in the general sense, like a tomb full of gifts, a folder with stamps or a set of chessmen, should be documented as instances of E19 Physical Object, and not as instances of E78 Collection. This is because they form wholes either because they are physically bound together or because they are kept together for their functionality."@en,rdfs:label "Sammlung"@de,rdfs:label "Collection"@en,rdfs:label "Collection"@fr,rdfs:label "Συλλογή"@el,rdfs:label "Коллекция"@ru,rdfs:label "Coleção"@ptSubClassOf:
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 (probably minus fixed fields), rather than attempt to make the move.