I wonder if seeking a Single Answer is not necessarily the best way forward anyway. Much of Bibframe’s problems seem to come from trying to keep everything from the past (MARC) while moving to something fit for the future, an ambition that has I think also afflicted RDA. Both RDA and Bibframe also seek to unite all formats, all types of collection, and all types of library under one format. Bibframe further aims to be “the foundation for the future of bibliographic description that happens on the web and in the networked world”. Given that bibliographic description doesn’t just happen in libraries (and within libraries also happens outside the MARC cataloguing section), its own ambition seems even wider, and this essentially under the aegis of a single library. Existing linked data projects that have published data (BL, European Library, Oslo, Worldcat, presumably now also the NLM), appear to have selected or created what they have decided will work best for their specific purposes and got on with it; the RDA element set as linked data in some ways naturally follows from the creation of the rules and element set itself. Would the dangers of fragmentation be better or worse than trying to create one monolithic solution, especially as time is slipping by?
 Although I appreciate the amount of work this must have involved to actually put together is considerably more than is implied by “naturally”.
Head of Current Cataloguing
University College London
London WC1E 6BT