+1 and +1 again - kc

On 7/25/14, 1:15 PM, Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Hi Sally,


I was under the impression that BIBFRAME was to be rule agnostic in order to appeal to a wider community than MARC/AACR2/RDA users and to avoid the interdependence we had with MARC/AACR.  While that’s probably not entirely realistic, shouldn’t the effort be to minimalize the influence of MARC/AACR2/RDA on the BF vocab to the extent possible? When we someday move away from RDA will we need to completely overhaul or throw out BF too?





Nancy J. Fallgren

Metadata Specialist Librarian

Cataloging and Metadata Management Section

Technical Services Division

National Library of Medicine



From: McCallum, Sally [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 2:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] BF vocabulary and RDA


Hi all,

There are often references to MARC on this list but the real influence on the BF vocabulary has been RDA, which we are not in a position to ignore in the bibliographic environment.  With RDA you record the attributes of an entity and then an institution can make the Work title or label for that entity as long or short as is needed for the situation.  But we are not yet in that environment so we must carry our strings in addition to the pieces.  The pieces look a lot like MARC because the pieces called out by RDA look that way, but not entirely:  RDA has more, and there is a tendency to want each element in RDA separately identified for manipulation purposes.  As RDA matures, BF will follow the progress and adapt as appropriate.





Sally H. McCallum

Chief, Network Development and MARC Standards Office

Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20540  USA

[log in to unmask]

Tel: 1-202-707-5119 – Fax 1-202-707-0115



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