I think you’re saying that modeling experts need to listen to domain experts and the former need to reflect it back in ways the latter (and beyond) can consistently
recognize, understand, and use more efficiently. An analogy would be mathematics. Math needs to reflect reality and prove itself useful in practice, but not everybody needs to know the math to realize those benefits.
I would argue that modeling experts need to be steeped in the jargon-intense vocabularies of RDF so they can create domain-friendly vocabularies where the RDF
underpinnings aren’t necessarily even noticed. Unfortunately, we live the renaissance period where the boundaries aren’t necessary clear to everyone.
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Murray, Ronald
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 11:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] 2-tier BIBFRAME
The difficulty I see in this thread (and much prior to this thread) is that instead of contending with a single approach to bibliographic description couched
in the implementation language of the time (book, card, and MARC catalog technology) we now see two approaches where workers are trying to do theory in implementation (or at least IT-centric ) languages.
Not all of the issues associated with Cultural Heritage resource description fall with the scope of IT-centric descriptive languages.
20th century approaches to scientific description (observers, observations, reference frames, etc.) and for representing systems of relationships (graph, node/vertex, link/edge, subgraph, degree centrality, etc.) together (along with conceptual
contributions from the social sciences) provide more than enough – implementable – descriptive power to address library/archive-grade resource description requirements.
You have to apply the two approaches simultaneously.
Let me add a few points to that:
* We need to take into consideration the viewpoints of people who are experienced in both sides of the current effort (bibliographic description and linked data),
and there are very few people with a great deal of expertise in both.
* Actually, in my view, having people engaging with the effort that do NOT know MARC is an advantage, not a disadvantage. There are a huge number of peculiarities
introduced over the years that should be reconsidered by fresh eyes, rather than perpetuated without cause.
* There's more future than there is past. MARC has existed for a long time, and there's a lot of legacy there. But there's even more bibliographic descriptions
that have yet to be written. The longer we remain tied to this horribly outdated technology, the more legacy data we will need to deal with and the further apart from the rest of the world (that is part of the web, not just displayed via the web) we become.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Jeff Young <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The reason is so that people who have never seen a MARC record never need to. They just want the information that is locked up deep inside.
> On Jan 31, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Michael Ayres <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Martynas wrote:
>>> I haven't seen any actual MARC data, but if someone has a simple example, we could work on that.
> Warning--RANT ahead:
> OK--You've got be kidding!! Why is someone who has never seen any actual MARC data trying to mess with restructuring the framework of our library catalogs?!?
> This is preposterous! As someone who has spent years cataloging (in both academic and public institutions) as well as managing local systems and library catalog data--I, for one, find this whole 'BIBFRAME' project laughable. Why do the 'powers that be'
think that we even want our local catalogs to be semantically connected to the web or have all of our data linked?! But go ahead and just keep on theorizing, while those of us in the trenches keep serving our local customers' needs so very well with MARC
> [rant over--no need to respond to this]
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services