I applaud the effort that NLM is taking on, as well as the work done by 
LC, but these efforts also servie to point out a great gap that exists 
in our community -- that we have no coordinated way to create our 
essential standards. No single institution has the capacity to manage a 
community-wide standards effort. Ideally, work on a new metadata 
standard would include representatives of a wide range of interested 
parties covering traditional libraries (from public libraries to 
research libraries), a range of material types, archival interests, 
digital libraries, and at least some of the partners with whom these 
groups might exchange data (publishers, database providers, and the 
web). It would include both subject experts and technology experts. It 
would also naturally include those who do or might create the systems 
that would use the technology. That mechanism is lacking.

In 2012, when the BIBFRAME initiative was announced, I proposed a model 
for the development of a new data carrier: While 
aimed at BIBFRAME, it could really be applied to any standard in our 
community. Looking now at the diagram in that post, I can already see 
where it should be amplified to include a broader list of interested 
parties. The main thrust of the idea, however, was that we need 
coordination between our content standards (cataloging rules), our 
technical standards (MARC, BIBFRAME, MODS, etc.), and the standards 
maintenance process (creation, versioning, updating). Today I would add 
a number of related data-sharing partners, from publishers to Amazon to 

I don't think anyone can question that we are in an environment where 
data is shared over a wide range of communities and users. It makes 
little sense to create standards in isolation. We do so NOT because we 
don't understand or don't care, but because the needed standards process 
has not be developed, and it hasn't been developed, at least in part, 
because it is a very expensive prospect.

I don't have a solution, but I also cannot have much faith in the 
current standards in progress. There's a fundamental gap that needs to 
be filled so that we can develop successful standards with broad usage.


On 11/26/14 6:52 AM, Victoria Mueller wrote:
> Excellent point Nancy. We look forward to the progress as a community 
> also!
> Vicki
> ———
> Victoria Mueller
> Senior Information Architect and Systems Librarian, Zepheira
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> On Nov 26, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] 
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> Thanks, Tom.
>> Just a comment to manage expectationsJ--  Whatever we draft for this 
>> experiment as a BF core vocabulary will be just a starting point for 
>> further development of that core (so, good enough to use for proof of 
>> concept, but not nearly final).  It will take broader input to agree 
>> on a BF core vocab that will be useful to the entire cultural 
>> heritage community.  If just the library cataloging community invests 
>> in developing a BF core vocabulary, then we won’t have progressed 
>> from the insularity we currently have with MARC.
>> -Nancy
>> Nancy J. Fallgren
>> Metadata Specialist Librarian
>> Cataloging and Metadata Management Section
>> Technical Services Division
>> National Library of Medicine
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *From:*Meehan, Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:*Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:52 AM
>> *To:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:*Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME experimentation at NLM
>> Nancy,
>> I really look forward to hearing more about this! I am particularly 
>> interested to see what is regarded as the “core BIBFRAME vocabulary”.
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>> ---
>> Thomas Meehan
>> Head of Current Cataloguing
>> Library Services
>> University College London
>> Gower Street
>> London WC1E 6BT
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]*On Behalf Of*Fallgren, Nancy 
>> (NIH/NLM) [E]
>> *Sent:*24 November 2014 22:10
>> *To:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:*Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME experimentation at NLM
>> Hi Karen,
>> We are still in very early stages of working through this, but had 
>> thought that when we have something worth sharing, (e.g., a draft 
>> profile) we’ll post it to this list.  We may consider setting up a 
>> separate site for sharing our work and tracking comments/issues, 
>> e.g., GitHub, but we’re not there yet.J  Our goal is to be able to 
>> start generating description (however drafty) in this model ca. 
>> Spring 2015.
>> As for software, we plan to iteratively adjust existing tools and 
>> scripts to meet our model.  So, the tools and programs are not ours, 
>> but we will share whatever we can as we believe the more 
>> people/institutions collaborating to make BIBFRAME viable, the better 
>> for all of us.
>> Thanks for your interest,
>> Nancy
>> Nancy J. Fallgren
>> Metadata Specialist Librarian
>> Cataloging and Metadata Management Section
>> Technical Services Division
>> National Library of Medicine
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>_
>> *From:*Karen Coyle [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:*Monday, November 24, 2014 9:55 AM
>> *To:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:*Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME experimentation at NLM
>> Nancy,
>> This looks to be an important development that could have significant 
>> impact on library data. Will there be a way for those of us who are 
>> interested to follow your work? I am hoping that documents and 
>> software will be made public, and that some discussion will take place.
>> Thank you,
>> kc
>> On 11/21/14 12:40 PM, Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] wrote:
>>     The National Library of Medicine (“NLM”) has been collaborating
>>     with Library of Congress (“LC”) on BIBFRAME development and
>>     experimentation from the Early Experimenters to the current
>>     Implementers.  The original goal of BIBFRAME (based on
>>     recommendations from the Working Group on the Future of
>>     Bibliographic Control and the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating
>>     Committee) was to develop a data sharing standard to replace MARC
>>     that is web-based, flexible, and extensible beyond the
>>     traditional library cataloging community (i.e., rule agnostic).
>>     However, as NLM has experimented with BIBFRAME over the past
>>     several years, we are increasingly concerned that the vocabulary
>>     development, in attempting to become sufficiently aligned with
>>     traditional bibliographic cataloging, may hinder meeting all of
>>     BIBFRAME’s goals, particularly those of flexibility and
>>     extensibility.
>>     As a result of this concern, NLM has decided to take a step back
>>     from the current experimental vocabulary produced by LC to
>>     experiment with a more ‘modular’ approach to BIBFRAME.  Among the
>>     BIBFRAME Early Experimenters, the idea of a modular approach to
>>     BIBFRAME was briefly promulgated in which we would have a core
>>     BIBFRAME vocabulary that was generic enough to be shareable by
>>     the entire cultural heritage community.  It was proposed that
>>     such a core BIBFRAME vocabulary could be extended with existing
>>     descriptive schemes developed by the various sectors of the
>>     cultural heritage community, i.e., descriptive schemes developed
>>     by those with expertise in the resources being described.  In
>>     this model, as a descriptive scheme changes or evolves or is
>>     replaced, that extension to BIBFRAME can change accordingly, and,
>>     while mapping to the BIBFRAME core vocabulary may also need
>>     adjusting, the core vocabulary itself should not be heavily
>>     impacted, if at all.
>>     This is the model (which we’ve characterized as ‘modular’ but
>>     might be considered a schema-defined profile in BIBFRAME-speak)
>>     that NLM intends to experiment with.  We believe that a
>>     successful proof of concept will demonstrate a BIBFRAME model and
>>     vocabulary that can meet all of BIBFRAME’s original goals.  We
>>     intend to draft a core BIBFRAME vocabulary for experimentation
>>     (we fully understand that a workable core vocabulary will require
>>     collaboration from many communities, but we need to start with
>>     something) and extend it with RDA (using the RDA Registry
>>     Elements) and an NLM vocabulary for local data.  Our intention is
>>     to focus on generating new data in this model, but we will also
>>     experiment with conversion of legacy data.
>>     NLM continues to work cooperatively with LC on BIBFRAME
>>     development and intends to meet regularly with LC to share our
>>     findings as we each run parallel experimentation in 2015.
>>     On behalf of NLM’s BIBFRAME Experimentation Team
>>     -Nancy Fallgren
>>     Nancy J. Fallgren
>>     Metadata Specialist Librarian
>>     Cataloging and Metadata Management Section
>>     Technical Services Division
>>     National Library of Medicine
>>     8600 Rockville Pike, Bldg 38
>>     Bethesda, MD 20894
>>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>_
>> -- 
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask]  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  <>
>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600