Michael, thanks for writing that. It's not a rant. Labeling it a rant carries a built-in apology for what you wrote and no apology is needed. I don't think anyone in the cataloging profession can find the information locked inside without some knowledge of MARC. If we are going to have to transfer data from one schema and/or framework to another, we will have to know the older language before translating it into the new. I thought mapping of some kind would be necessary. New systems will not be able to spring from the head of Zeus fully formed- they will need to borrow data from the older structures. Some of that data is not necessary for display, but it is used internally by catalogers and others for reporting purposes. In addition to the library patron, the librarian also needs to utilize information in the catalog to support daily operations and special projects.

"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?" is a good question. We've been shamed into thinking that we need to look like any other retail delivery mechanism because it's what our "customers" expect. It's the research endeavor being shoe-horned into a business model, which favors the cheap, the easy, the popular. That's not how research discovery works. If we are linking to places that could go out of business and disappear, we are not being responsible to the research community. If we are linking to places that withhold data to limit access to content they don’t like or agree with, we are doing a disservice to our research community. If we are caught in the middle of a fight between 2 commercial giants and our researchers are denied access while they wrestle it out, research suffers. We are putting our trust in linking data maintained by businesses that could fold at any time for any reason or for no good reason. They don't have a responsibility or interest to maintain access for the sake of access- we do. We need a reliable back-up.

Cindy Wolff

-----Original Message-----

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeff Young

Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:44 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] 2-tier BIBFRAME


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.


>>> Martynas


> 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 (and AACR2).

> [rant over--no need to respond to this]