 |
 |
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 continue to use outdated bibliographic software, and using FilemakerPro, 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