Print

Print


Just adding my pennies as well.  The amount of resources we are responsible for is far outstripping our capacity for full RDA metadata creation.  We are already reinventing our processing streams.  I don't see why Bibframe shouldn't communicate  data created according to RDA but it shouldn't be dependent on RDA for its structure.  Structure and data needs come first. Once that's settled, we look to see how RDA can be expressed in that structure.

Philip

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 25, 2014, at 4:20 PM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I'll see that +2 and add my own to the pot.
> 
> In all seriousness, it's not totally clear to me what the purpose is of doing Linked Data based on cataloging rules that do not invest in either the RDF metamodel or the Web, or even what it means to do Linked Data in that way.
> 
> For me, a Bibframe bound to RDA is of much less interest than a Bibframe that can act as an interchange and point of commonality amongst different models of description, especially from the point of view of a research institution. That's because the portion of resources in the responsibility of such institutions that is carefully described by professional catalogers (the only audience for RDA) is shrinking. At my institution, and I think this is common, the remainder now more and more consists of the intermediate products of research, often described by the researcher or scholar who created them, or of digitized representations of archival material with original cataloging that is concerned with SAA (or entirely local) standards. If Bibframe is limited to being an RDF format for RDA cataloging, it's of no use at all for the fastest growing segments of descriptive work at my institution.
> 
> ---
> A. Soroka
> The University of Virginia Library
> 
>> On Jul 25, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> +1 and +1 again - kc
>> 
>>> On 7/25/14, 1:15 PM, Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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   
>>> 
>>> ***********************************
>>> 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
>>