Print

Print


Although I do know that OCLC is involved in the Bibframe initiative, that
would be a better question to aim at reps of the utilities themselves.  I
know they are lurking out there!

  Charley

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Erin Merold <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

>  Thanks, Charley. That makes sense.
>
>
>
> Do you know where I could find information on whether or not OCLC or
> anyone else like them is looking into/testing/planning on using BIBFRAME at
> this point? I know OCLC is still heavily involved in Schema.
>
>
>
> Erin Merold
>
> Cataloger
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Charles Pennell
> *Sent:* Monday, April 06, 2015 10:47 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME implementation
>
>
>
> There is no doubt that Bibframe is a real entity and that for many
> libraries it will replace MARC.  Even more so, if and when it is
> implemented by OCLC and other the other national utilities on which most
> libraries depend.  However, you need to realize that there are still
> libraries filing catalog cards, keeping Windows XP running so they can
> continue to use outdated bibliographic software, and using FilemakerPro,
> MSAccess, and other apps to run their catalogs.  These libraries will never
> make the leap, since in many cases, even MARC was never fully implemented.
> The ILSs that we have entrusted to maintain our data in what we think is
> the current MARC standard, really only guarantee MARC ingest and output.
> What happens to the data once it enters their system has more to do with
> Oracle, Postgres, MySQL, and other databases on which their system is built
> than it does on MARC.  The cataloger sees something that resembles MARC (it
> has fixed and variable fields, the latter with numeric tags and indicators,
> on the screen), but may or may not be MARC in the background.  Certainly,
> no cataloger has ever had to directly code the MARC legend! Even what you
> see in OCLC is not really MARC, since they early on adopted mnemonic tags
> to address the fixed fields rather than force users to count relative byte
> positions to get to the value they wanted to enter.
>
>
>
> I guess a good question would be, will the cataloger interface change with
> Bibframe or will the systems into which we enter data continue to ask us to
> submit the usual elements (author, title, publisher, subjects, etc.) and
> then place them in their Bibframe context behind the scenes, as they do now
> with MARC?  I'm betting that catalogers will never have to directly
> interact with the mark-up required by Bibframe, just as they've never
> really had to directly interact with MARC.  Cataloger time is simply too
> valuable to expend on the markup overhead associated with any bibliographic
> system.
>
>
>
>    Charley
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Erin Merold <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, I think I’m a little confused.
>
>
>
> I’m a fairly new cataloger (about 2 years under my belt) and am fresh out
> of grad school (graduated spring 2014). I am currently employed at my first
> full-time cataloging position, and I really enjoy cataloging. I subscribed
> to this list in an attempt to keep updated with cataloging goings-on now
> that I am out of grad school.
>
>
>
> When I subscribed to this list, I thought it was understood that BIBFRAME
> was most definitely going to be implemented – it was just a matter of time
> and working out the bugs: hence the list.  Everything on the LOC website
> seems to suggest that BIBFRAME is indeed definitely going to replace MARC
> at some point in the future. However, from many of the comments I’ve seen
> on here, it seems that perhaps this is just a possible option for libraries
> in the future – is that the case? Or is BIBFRAME actually going to happen
> at some point in the future?
>
>
>
> If it IS a sure thing that BIBFRAME will be implemented, then why are we
> spending so much time arguing about it? For example, Robert Sanderson said:
>
>
>
> So ... please lets focus on constructive suggestions for how to improve
> the current Model T version of the ontology we have now, towards that much
> sleeker and better performing Ferrari :)
>
>
>
> I would think it would be better to focus on constructive suggestions for
> improving BIBFRAME, which would be replacing MARC. Unless, of course, I am
> mistaken, and that is not actually the case. (Forgive me, I don’t mean to
> call anyone in particular out; I just remember this particular quote).
>
>
>
> However, I will say that I really, really hope that something comes along
> and replaces MARC…Maybe it’s because I’m younger than most of my fellow
> catalogers, but it seems to me that MARC, while innovative when it was
> first used, is now incredibly outdated. One of the library world’s main
> concerns is staying relevant for current and future users, and we can’t do
> that if we’re mired down in outdated technology. I realize that funding is
> a huge and appropriate concern, but it’s going to be even more so if the
> world views the library as unable to catch up with the modern world in
> which it exists. Would you vote to continue funding something you viewed as
> outdated and unnecessary? For my part, I find myself wrestling with the
> fixed fields when cataloging eBooks, audiobooks on CD or digitally
> recorded, DVDs, or Blu-Rays. It’s as though MARC itself doesn’t want to
> acknowledge that technology beyond analog tape exists. It’s like it’s
> literally stuck in the 80’s!
>
>
>
> I was thrilled when I stumbled upon the Webcast from November 2013
> discussing BIBFRAME (
> http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/media/updateforum-nov22-2013.html), because I
> thought that finally the library world was taking one giant, painful step
> forward towards modernization. The public service side of librarianship has
> been running circles around the cataloging side when it comes to
> modernization and changing the way we serve our patrons to better meet
> their needs.  It’s really sad to see the other half of the library world
> get left behind.
>
>
>
> So, I guess I’m asking if BIBFRAME is a real thing – is it really going to
> be implemented, and replace MARC? Or is that just a possibility that we are
> discussing? If it’s just a possibility, are there other possibilities also
> being discussed?
>
>
>
>
>
> Erin Merold
>
> Cataloger
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Charley Pennell
>
> Principal Cataloger
>
> NCSU Libraries
>
> North Carolina State University
>



-- 
Charley Pennell
Principal Cataloger
NCSU Libraries
North Carolina State University