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 organizations.
> 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 http://www.cidoc-crm.org .
Tutorial document is here: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc_tutorial/index.html
The erlangen mappings from the rdfs files to OWL 2: