Hi Shelly – we had an example of creator in a near-final draft and somehow it got lost,  so thanks for pointing this out.


  Anyway, just as in example 2 where the role is relators:aut for author … 

For creator, you would use  the property:   relators:cre


Which is the same as   http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/cre





From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shelley Doljack
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 1:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] Agents and Roles -- RE: BIBFRAME vocabulary 2.0 draft specifications posted


I’m not sure I quite understand the proposal for how to express a creator role if bf:creator is removed. Let’s say, I have a person who is the principal investigator of a resource, and we want to specify that role as a creator role. There are also other people involved in the creation of the resource, which we give the roles author or creator to. How would I express that the principal investigator is a creator too? Like this?


bf:contributor [

    a bf:Contribution ;

    bf:role “creator” ;

    bf:role “principal investigator”;

    bf:agent <URI#RWO> ] .


So basically, in order to specify that a person had a creation-type role for a resource, I need to use an additional role term (i.e. “creator”). Is that what is being proposed? If so, in my experience trying to specify creator-type and contributor-type roles in our MODS records, lacking the ability to specify that a name is a creator-type in the schema makes it challenging. We end up doing the same thing that I think is being proposed here: use the role term “creator” in addition to other role terms. I don’t really like this solution as I think being able to specify a creator-type is more elegant. What is the thinking behind removing bf:creator? Specifying a creator-type is necessary for our data consumers to index and display things the way the content owners expect their resources to display in the discovery environment.  




Shelley Doljack

Discovery Metadata Librarian

Metadata Dept., Lathrop Library

Stanford University Libraries


[log in to unmask]




From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McCallum, Sally
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 9:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: BIBFRAME vocabulary 2.0 draft specifications posted


BIBFRAME 1.0 has been stable for more than a year now. We have intentionally kept it stable so that implementers could experiment with it and so that we could learn from discussion and consultation the issues of the vocabulary and how it might be improved.  We at LC implemented a pilot that is ongoing now using the 1.0 vocabulary – an exercise that also gave us “feedback”.


Then several months ago, LC started posting for review proposed changes to the BIBFRAME vocabulary in preparation for its redevelopment as BIBFRAME 2.0.  The change proposals were prepared after reviewing the comments received on the listserv over the last year and comments from invited experts – along with dealing with our own implementation experiences.  Discussion of these proposals and consultations proved quite fruitful and helped significantly in the development of the draft 2.0 specification.   We thank you all for your comments and advice.


We are referring to the current vocabulary in use as BIBFRAME 1.0 and the developing draft vocabulary as BIBFRAME 2.0.  There are seven “draft specifications” (targeted at different components of the vocabulary) posted at http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/ . Specifically:


Agents and Roles 



Identifiers and Notes

Administrative Metadata


We invite comment and discussion on these draft specifications.  Working from these specs, we hope to have BIBFRAME 2.0 in place soon, hopefully by early January.



Sally H. McCallum

Chief, Network Development and MARC Standards Office

Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20540  USA

[log in to unmask]

Tel: 1-202-707-5119 – Fax 1-202-707-0115