Print

Print


John, unfortunately I have no idea what you are advocating FOR, but 
would love to hear it. Could you elaborate?

Thanks,
kc

On 3/6/15 9:09 PM, Myers, John wrote:
> Hear, hear!
>
> (With apologies if this has previously been expressed -- I've been 
> tied up with tasks for a week and am behind on my reading.)
>
> With long experience with MARC, my primary concern with BibFrame is 
> that it replicates the existing division in the MARC-iverse between 
> bibliographic, authority, and holdings records. If BibFrame (or 
> whatever turns out as the replacement for MARC) is going to adequately 
> serve a data-verse framed on FRBR modeling and RDA relationships, it 
> needs to be developed along lines that afford greater parity and 
> agnosticism between the various FRBR entities. It is not sufficient to 
> merely recreate MARC's silos with the ability to provide linkages 
> thrown in. A more powerful arrangement needs to be developed, in which 
> the existing MARC structures need to be relegated to a carefully 
> constrained subset of the new system.
>
> As a holder of a B.S. in Mathematics, I cannot help but feel we are at 
> a point analogous to the transitions in the understanding of numbers 
> -- from roots in counting by whole numbers through a whole sequence of 
> transitions to complex numbers. Each of these transitions were 
> preceded by periods where certain questions couldn't be answered (what 
> does it mean to count nothing? what does it mean to take 3 away from 
> 2? what is the square root of of a number that isn't a square? what is 
> the square root of a negative number?). Each expansion of the concept 
> of number has been accompanied by a corresponding expansion in the 
> ability to solve questions and the power to apply those solutions. We 
> have seen similar transitions in our field in the transitions from 
> dictionary catalogs to card catalogs, and from strictly card-based 
> cataloging to the MARC surrogates for catalog cards. The next 
> evolutionary step awaits us. It will not be fostered by preserving the 
> constraints of tripartite data file construction.
>
> John Myers, Catalog & Metadata Librarian
> Schaffer Library, Union College
> Schenectady NY 12308
>
> 518-388-6623
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Martynas Jusevičius 
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Hey,
>
>     after following discussions and developments in the BIBFRAME space, it
>     seems to me that it tries to be too many things for too many people.
>
>     I think many of the problems stem from the fact that (to my
>     understanding) BIBFRAME is supposed to accommodate legacy MARC data
>     and be the next-generation solution for bibliographic Linked Data.
>     Attempting to address both cases, it fails to address either of them
>     well.
>
>     In my opinion, a possible solution could be to have 2 tiers of RDF
>     vocabularies:
>     - a lower-level one that precisely captures the semantics of MARC
>     - a higher-level one that is designed from scratch for
>     bibliographic Linked Data
>
>     The conversion between the two (or at least from the lower to the
>     higher level) could be expressed simply as SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries.
>
>     Any thoughts?
>
>
>     Martynas
>
>

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