all. What I am saying is that for the library community, that is, the people who already know and understand--and even control--MARC format, changing the format they already control to Bibframe will not give them any new capabilities over what they have been able to do with MARCXML.
*Librarians* understand the MARC codes and that means they can work with MARCXML to fold in their records with what else exists on the Internet; they can do that now, and they've been able to do it for awhile.
So, if we can already do anything and haven't, the obvious question is: why will anything change with Bibframe/RDF?
I wrote that message on Autocat to combat the popular idea that the reason libraries haven't done anything new or interesting is because of the limitations of the format. That was true until MARCXML arrived and then it became possible to do all sorts of new things. MARCXML may be nasty and difficult to work with, but no matter: if somebody wants to, it *can* be worked with *within the library community*.
And people have worked with it, such as we see in catalogs that utilize Lucene indexing (which is based on MARCXML) to create the facets we see in different library catalogs. (That is one thing that has been done in the last 20 years, and it is due to XML)
I gave the example of printing day-glo colors merely to emphasize that we can currently do anything we want right now, but of course, I was not suggesting we should waste our time on that. I want to try to open people's minds to what *can* be possible. *Anything* is a tremendous concept that is difficult to grasp.
Once we accept and begin to comprehend the idea that "anything can be done" the question of what would be better, or worse, uses of our labor and resources becomes far more complex and takes on different subtleties. Those who believe that the problems we have faced are because of the *format* so therefore, the solution is to get a "better format" and things will then be solved, will be sadly disillusioned.