On 2/2/15 7:31 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> I think BIBFRAME tries to cover too much even in the Linked Data 
> layer. For example, taxonomies and categorization are not specific to 
> bibliographic data and are already covered by established vocabularies 
> such as SKOS. I don't see why they should also be included in BF, 
> unless they were added in support for MARC, in which case it is bad 
> design.
> BIBFRAME should be the glue between different Linked Data vocabularies 
> relevant to bibliographic data, and not a blanket to cover them all.

Yes, that's an argument that has been made here, but to no avail.

Here's another option that I see: Create links between MARC records and 
related RDF triples without transforming the whole MARC record to RDF. 
Begin slowly, and only add linkable data with specific goals in mind.

Much of what is in library/archive data has little or no value for 
linking -- for searching, yes, for display, yes, but for linking, no. 
It's become something of a cliche' to say that the MARC record is 
primarily a mark-up of a textual description of the resource. Had it 
been created in 1995 instead of 1965 the record would have been an XML 
and/or HTML document. Very few of the fields/subfields in MARC are 
actionable in any way except as they are bundled into a record-wide 
keyword search.

We could start by identifying *linkable data* and adding that to our 
data store, much like OCLC has added data to its MARC-based 
online displays. This data could live in relation to the MARC record 
without the necessity to transform the text of current library 
cataloging into RDF (which I think isn't a good fit).

After working with this linkable data for a while, I think that people 
will better understand the "document vs linked data" concept. I also 
think that it will be easier to begin to transform our data because 
we'll have an idea of what functionality we are wanting to support. At 
the moment, it seems that we are transforming our data to RDF just for 
the purpose of making it RDF. BIBFRAME, as currently conceived, will 
provide few if any advantages over MARC because linking to web resources 
is not one of the functions being considered. There are no BIBFRAME use 
cases [1] that are about linking to resources, and many people complain 
that BIBFRAME appears to be a huge change with no provable gain.

[1] The use cases document seems to be have removed or at least unlinked 
from the BF site, otherwise I would link to it here.

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