Print

Print


On Nov 9, 2014 10:45 AM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>This is especially so if the Bibframe predicate vocabulary remains
committed to the particular Bibframe "two-level" model.

The sound you hear is a nail being struck square on the head.

bibframe created a new conceptual model. The design of this model was not
driven by theoretical concerns; nor was it designed as part of a broader
linked data strategy.

The primary entities within the bibframe universe appear to be
[descriptions].

The primary evaluation criteria appear to have been those dealing with ease
of generation from MARC-XML data files.

The primary use case appears to be the transfer of the contents of one or
more bibliographic records between systems.

That being the case, then it might be better to replace the entire
currently proposed solution with a literal translation of marc into RDF
with the most minimal changes possible that comply with appendix M, and
publish those results as the final outcome of the exercise, which would
have "FOIA"* benefits.

Review of  published draft documents, minutes, and presentations would
suffice to allow an external group to prepare a lessons learned .

Simon

* FOIA does not apply to these bits of the Library of Congress; records
access is governed by 36 CFR 703.

36 CFR 703.5(b)(10) provides a deliberative process exception that is
somewhat similar in effect to 5 U.S.C. ยง 552(b)(5). The text is different
enough that the Library may have different scope for this privilege -
Library determination of whether disclosure is "premature" would presumably
be upheld unless arbitrary and capricious.
There is a policy of not disclosing records which are part of on-going
reviews or other current projects ; it is only after this point that review
under 703.5 is relevant.
This policy is possibly not effective against Sen. Roberts :-)

The rule is intended to follow the spirit of the FOIA, so some case law may
apply *by analogy* (indeed, a few sections of the rule appear to be written
to incorporate *some* of the case law explicitly).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/703.5