Steven, I'm not sure what you mean. is a separate vocabulary from Is that it?


On 4/24/15 9:19 AM, Steven Folsom wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Thanks for the viewers, very helpful. It confirms though that there is no mention of BIBFRAME in


Forgive any typos, sent while on the run.

On Apr 24, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Everyone will have their own favorite RDFa viewers. I generally used the Structured Data Linter. Here's a link to example output:

At you input the URL of the item you want to see displayed.


On 4/24/15 3:50 AM, Steven Folsom wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Tim and Tom, 

As an alumni of the Zepheira BIBFRAME training, I've been meaning to ask similar questions. I have less concern with the use of multiple vocabularies than I do with not being able to confirm that a bf:Work is the same as a  Because we've been taught that the URIs are what identify things (including classes and properties)... without seeing the OWL/RDFS for equivalent class/property assertions we can't make any machine interpretable (honestly, human interpretable) understanding of the relationships between and BIBFRAME. If made equivalent class assertions with BIBFRAME (similar to FOAF making equivalent class assertions with classes,, it would clear a lot of things up.

When I Google " RDFS" I see examples of library resources from the Denver Public Library marked up in RDF in the Google snippets (cool). But… they’re typed in the namespace, and I get sent to the Denver Public Library page for the library resource where I can’t get to the RDF. Maybe some day soon when the ontologies settle down library resource pages will expose their RDF under the "librarian view" link. Equally useful would be to see the OWL/RDFS.

Eric and others from Zepheira, Is there a ontology file to look at? How can we access the RDF for DPL and other Libhub partner’s collections?


Steven Folsom
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Cornell University Library

From: <Meehan>, Thomas
Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
Date: Friday, April 24, 2015 at 4:20 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]"
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] and serials [was BIBFRAME and serials]



I confess to some confusion over what is happening here, given Bibframe’s enthusiasm for a more centralised vocabulary[*] under the aegis of LC but Zepheira’s energy and apparent independence in pushing Bibframe (or variations of it) forward together with, for instance, the NLM’s rethinking of the issue.









Thomas Meehan

Head of Current Cataloguing

Senate House Hub

Library Services

University College London

Gower Street

London WC1E 6BT


[log in to unmask]


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Thompson
Sent: 24 April 2015 02:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] and serials [was BIBFRAME and serials]


I hadn't seen this before, but the Library extension of Zepheira's actually includes a Continuing Resources subclass (of Work?) and several properties drawn from the MARC fixed fields[1].

What do denizens of the BIBFRAME list make of Prior to looking closely at the website, I was under the impression that "Bibframe Lite" was essentially a pared-down version of the LC vocabulary. However, on closer inspection, it actually strikes me as quite different--and anything but "lite." I understand the principle that "anyone can say anything about anything," but won't this parallel vocabulary--with virtually the same namespace--inevitably breed confusion? Zepheira's has an open, CC license, but I wasn't able to find a link to the current RDF ontology anywhere on the website.




Tim A. Thompson
Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
Princeton University Library

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

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