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

[log in to unmask]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Martynas Jusevičius <[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