Print

Print


​How do i unsubscribe?


Mary Bieber
Director, CPL
Clinton, WI


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Erin Merold <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 8:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Closed and Open Assumptions was [BIBFRAME] [Topic] Types
 

What exactly is it that we catalogers do best? Create MARC records that no one but us ever looks at? We’re kidding ourselves if we think patrons are looking at the MARC. Most librarians (non-catalogers) that I know don’t even know how to access it. If you’re referring to the ability to organize information about an item so that it is findable in the future, then we’re only pretty good at that – not excellent. There are plenty of other people (retail stores, for instance) organizing items and information sometimes better than we are. If libraries are to continue to remain relevant, especially on the internet, then we need to be able to organize information in a way that makes sense to anyone who looks at it. And if we’re trying to make our stuff findable, then having libraries’ items come up as hits on Google sounds pretty awesome to me. Perhaps it is time to reach outside of the library community in the development of BIBFRAME.

 

Erin Merold

Cataloger

614-873-7626

[log in to unmask]

Junior Library Guild

www.juniorlibraryguild.com

 

 

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Will Evans
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 9:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Closed and Open Assumptions was [BIBFRAME] [Topic] Types

 

It would seem to me that any replacement for MARC should first address the needs of library catalogers and that consumption by outside constituencies should be secondary. I certainly don’t see these goals as mutually exclusive. But we need a platform to let our skill and expertise shine. If we are hindered by a system that compromises what we do best, because of perceived notions of what outsiders want, no one will want to come to our party.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Will Evans

Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian

Library of the Boston Athenaeum

10 1/2 Beacon Street

Boston, MA   02108

 

Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 224

Fax: 617-227-5266 

www.bostonathenaeum.org

 

 

 

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tennant,Roy
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Closed and Open Assumptions was [BIBFRAME] [Topic] Types

 

It would seem to me that for the desires expressed below to come true, communities outside of library catalogers would need to be consulted in BIBFRAME's development. 

Roy

 

From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, November 10, 2014 at 11/10/14 • 10:40 AM
To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Closed and Open Assumptions was [BIBFRAME] [Topic] Types

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Adam, and believe that if BibFrame is to even begin to replace MARC, then it MUST be consumed (and hopefully also produced) by more communities than just library cataloguers using replacement tools for the ones they already have.

 

Rob

 

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 6:19 AM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

In other words, if Bibframe is a language for discussion and information exchange only amongst catalogers and their professional colleagues, my objections to requiring inference evaporate. In that situation, I'm all in favor of using all technological capabilities to the fullest. If, on the other hand, Bibframe is a language for publishing bibliographic information to the wild wide Web, then Bibframe triples could be consumed by anyone and anything, and the assumption of inference (even given the points you make below) seems to me to be too much.