I'm currently part of George Washington University's BIBFRAME implementation testbed group (http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/implementation/register.html) and I can assure you that there are some of us who are actively working to try and get archival objects described correctly in this environment. 

There are a lot of unresolved issues with BIBFRAME right now, so it's very much a work in progress.

There's a lot of promise here - specifically the ability to link individually described materials to the collection from which they draw their provenance - but a lot of the issue seems to be centered around how to classify archival collections since many institutions arrange and describe them differently. There has been some talk of a "Super-Work" or "Collection" level that exists above the Work level in the BF model, or alternatively a Collection as a specific type of the Work class, but we're not convinced that adding additional levels is the right move (and many are actively against it, since that would undo some of the move from the WEMI model to the W-I model).

There are also some interesting parallel possibilities with EAC-CPF and the Authority model of Bibframe, though to my knowledge those connections have not yet been fully explored.

I've been following Ethan Gruber's work on transforming EAD into RDF https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/lod-lam/sIrCqZPaZ8c/sGOAFZSkBBgJ), which is probably going to be a necessary step if EAD is going to be compatible with BF.

My personal feeling is that we might need to sunset EAD and move to a different description standard that better integrates with linked data, but obviously that's a massive effort. EAD always seemed to me to be, frankly, the way to electronically re-create the paper finding aid. Maybe that's being unfair, but we can do so much more with our data. We need to be thinking less "how can I make my finding aids work in a world of linked data?" and more "how can I get my data into this network?" The finding aid is just one way to do it.

I'm happy to answer questions about BF (as best I can) and bring suggestions to both our testbed and to the larger implementation group. 

Thank you,

Nick Connizzo
Digital Archivist
Special Collections Research Center, Gelman Library
2130 H. Street NW, Washington DC 20052
[log in to unmask]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Megan McShea <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks, Glenn, for posting this announcement to this list. I'd be very
curious in general to hear whether EAD users have been following BIBFRAME
developments, and how they see the potential relationship between BIBFRAME
and EAD.

My sense is the hierarchical nature of EAD, and the often relative (rather
than absolute) component titles used in archival description, makes the
exploitation of EAD-encoded description difficult in a linked data
environment. However, looking at the model online
(http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/model.html) it seems designed to exploit
relationships between entities specifically, so maybe this could lend itself
to re-framing hierarchical description for linking.

Then again EAC-CPF, and single-level EAD, seem better suited for linked data
in general.

From the BIBFRAME listserv, however, apart from Kate Bowers (way to
represent!) there don't seem to be many participants familiar with the
variables and structure of archival description.

I'd be very interested in hearing what people on this list are thinking
about this subject.

Megan McShea
Audiovisual Archivist
Archives of American Art