On Jan 28, 2016 10:40 AM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 1/27/16 10:32 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
>> BIBFRAME is well suited for exchange among cultural heritage
> Personally, I'm thinking that it's too early to declare victory on that.
Maybe it's better to say that it has potential.

It might even be better to declare defeat:) The  CIDOC Common Reference
Model (CRM) (ISO standard), and the related FRBRoo  (not ISO - unsure of
IFLA) are quite a bit more mature than the current  bibframe outputs. It is
not implausible that restarting the bibframe initiatives using this model
as a basis would give better results, and take less effort.

It is not necessary to use the entire model for each project ; the CRM can
serve as a conceptual model for interoperability.The British Museum has a
number of active projects based on the CRM.  They are experienced with
Rosetta Stones.

See .

Tutorial document is here:

The erlangen mappings from the rdfs files to OWL 2: