It is incorrect to say that RDA as a standard does not invest in or is not
amenable to the RDF metamodel or to being expressed as linked data. In
fact, RDA has already been modeled as RDF, and the entire element set is
now available, in a variety of RDF flavors, at
and (in addition to the RDA
value vocabularies, which were already available as SKOS: And talk about proliferation of predicates! There are
955 RDA properties divided among five classes (WEMI + Agent)[1].

For this very reason, there would seem to be even less justification for
BIBFRAME to be bound to RDA. As A. Soroka puts it, BIBFRAME should be free
to "act as an interchange and point of commonality amongst different models
of description," not primarily a transmission format for RDA.

So, here are my questions: how might the new RDA/RDF vocabularies be
leveraged to complement BIBFRAME and ease the burden of having to reinvent
the bibliographic wheel? If BIBFRAME were freed from having to support RDA
in all its granularity, what would it look like?



Tim A. Thompson
Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
Princeton University Library
693 Alexander Road, 2nd Floor
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

(609) 258-2597 (office)
(201) 423-9972 (mobile)
[log in to unmask]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

> While we're piling on...
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Philip Evan Schreur <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  Structure and data needs come first. Once that's settled, we look to see
>> how RDA can be expressed in that structure.
> This is exactly it.  Bibframe should support RDA, not be constrained by
> it.  Additional constraints can be layered on top, for example via profiles.
> Rob