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.