Print

Print


Martynas, 

> So if you question the future of BIBFRAME development, I suggest you
> start reading about RDF and Linked Data use cases first. There are
> quite many of them. They do not even have to be library-related -- the
> domain of the data is secondary.


Have you found any particularly pithy use cases that convey the potential utility and value of linked data--especially in a library context--that you can share? In my experience, these are harder to find (and write) than one might think. Any pointers to prior art would be much appreciated. 

- Tom




On Apr 7, 2015, at 7:01 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:

> Hey all,
> 
> it seems to me that this discussion has long lost focus.
> 
> I want therefore to repeat one point that I feel is still missed by
> many: it is RDF and Linked Data that will make the difference, open
> vast new possibilities for flexible data structures, linking, querying
> etc.
> 
> BIBFRAME, Schema.org are just RDF vocabularies along many, many
> others. They may be tailored for library data, but it doesn't mean
> they have to be the only ones in use by libraries.
> 
> So if you question the future of BIBFRAME development, I suggest you
> start reading about RDF and Linked Data use cases first. There are
> quite many of them. They do not even have to be library-related -- the
> domain of the data is secondary.
> 
> 
> Martynas
> graphityhq.com
> 
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Erin Merold
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Thanks Roy – I was already planning on doing some Googling this morning, and
>> it really took me down the rabbit hole 0.o But in a good way!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I completely agree – whichever data format allows us to be effective,
>> relevant, and continue to serve our patrons in the best way possible, we
>> need to jump on. I’ve been very confused and frustrated at the resistance
>> I’ve seen and heard not just on this list but from other, older colleagues
>> as well.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For those of you that are in the same boat as me – fresh out of grad school,
>> just looking for some information, and really not finding it here – here are
>> some good resources to get started (although I’m sure you’re already well
>> aware of some of these):
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/2013-05.pdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://blog.schema.org/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.libhub.org/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oclc.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fresearch%2Fpresentations%2Fgodby%2Fbibframe-schema-ala2013.ppt&ei=rNMjVdDsF-3gsASb1oHoBg&usg=AFQjCNGT2W6kHz77p63qWXrD7TMMikf6yQ&sig2=ttXVaKXxgCeW_eYWouUGog&bvm=bv.89947451,d.cWc
>> (this is a powerpoint; I wasn’t able to view it at my work computer so I
>> don’t know how good it is)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2013/charles-a-cutter-and-edward-tufte-coming-to-a-library-near-you-via-bibframe/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.slideshare.net/enimsakont/beyond-marc-bibframe-and-the-future-of-bibliographic-data
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.slideshare.net/oclcr/aligning-bibframe-with-the-schemabib-extend-model
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> There is also a webinar being held on May 13th by the ALCTS entitled From
>> MARC to BIBFRAME: an introduction that sounds extra helpful. I hope that
>> helps!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Erin Merold
>> 
>> Cataloger
>> 
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tennant,Roy
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 5:21 PM
>> 
>> 
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME implementation
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Google "bibframe oclc" for more information. Short answer: as a
>> bibliographic utility if would be foolish of us to not accept and produce
>> whichever data formats libraries require to be effective.
>> 
>> Roy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Erin Merold <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Monday, April 6, 2015 at 9:59 AM
>> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME implementation
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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