Hi Jeff,

First I'll mention that the last library catalog card was printed by OCLC
in just 2015. And many libraries continue to use catalog cards to manage
their collections. So just because new ways of creating library metadata is
available, doesn't mean that older data exchange formats (like MARC) will
disappear. I also like to point out that it took Henrietta Avrams 8 years
to develop MARC before it was an ISO standard, and we've only been working
on BF for 5 years now. This process it not going to be like a flicking
light switch. It will be slow and iterative, and involve a lot of education
and cooperation.

My overall thoughts to your question is that you're asking the wrong
question. Instead of Life After MARC, think of it as Life *With* BIBFRAME
(and other ontologies). As Karen mentioned, we already exist in the
information environment populated with many different structure standards
and mark-up syntax. Future ILSs will need process and serialize more than
MARC data, (and some current ILSs already do). BIBFRAME will be just one of
many flavors to choose when modeling library metadata.

To respond to your each of your points:

1) Unlike its stature in the Age of MARC, the Library of Congress lacks the
> authority to impose its standards or practices on the bibliographic
> metadata ecosystem. LC is no longer the chief source of bibliographic
> metadata, and the influence on the ecosystem of the bibliographic metadata
> it generates is minimal. The most likely allies of LC in moving BIBFRAME
> forward--large academic or public libraries with experienced cataloging
> staff--are shifting resources AWAY from cataloging and into other areas
> (digital humanities, assessment, student engagement, open access, etc.).

I'm assuming that your library uses the Library of Congress Classification
System, and Library of Congress Authorities? I'm also assuming that your
institution is also a member of the PCC of which the Library of Congress is
an important partner. If LC is adopting BIBFRAME, then PCC will support
their work and PCC members can benefit from that partnership. No, LC is no
longer the chief source of bibliographic metadata. Vendors are. They take
our data  that we freely provide through their proprietary tools and then
sell it back to us. But we have the potential to free our metadata through
linked data and ontologies like BIBFRAME. So institutions like LC have the
potential to become to chief source of linked open bibliographic data for
the world to harvest. LC already is a primary source of linked open
authority data.

The technical infrastructure of current ILS, discovery, next-generation,
> etc. platforms does not support BIBFRAME and there is no market incentive
> to change. Open-source, collaborative ventures like FOILO must necessarily
> base much of their development around current and legacy MARC data, not
> largely hypothetical data models like BIBFRAME.

Yes. we need new tools to create, share, and maintain shared linked open
data. But it's like you're asking to take the car for a test drive, and we
haven't even built the engine yet. We're still welding the chassis! Of
course our linked data will be developed around current and legacy MARC
data -- it's our primary source for library metadata. We have to evolve
that data so that it can integrate and engage with the wider web.

> BIBFRAME in a production environment is wildly impractical: the BIBFLOW
> Project, although it officially ended in 2016, has issued no substantive
> final report of which I am aware. Does one exist?

Why you think BIBFRAME in a production environment is "wildly impractical?"
Here is an example of a BIBFRAME production environment -- Casalini's
Share-VDE catalog. Built entirely on BIBFRAME and other ontologies in
linked data RDF:

As for BIBFLOW, here are their preliminary findings:

Like all iterative development, we need pilot projects to test aspects of
the greater goal. BIBFLOW, like LD4L, LD4P, LD4L-Labs, and numerous local
linked data projects are steps along a path toward developing a successful
practice of linked data for libraries (and other memory institutions).

> BIBFRAME is highly conceptual, top-heavy, and too complicated to be
> understood and effectively implemented by most libraries (cf. the failure
> of many librarties to adopt RDA over AACR2). The people talking about
> BIBFRAME (various PCC committees, etc.) are not creating BIBFRAME-compliant
> metadata; they are merely talking about it.

I would argue that this is your opinion. MARC to the uninitiated looks too
complicated to be understood and effectively implemented for a web
environment. BIBFRAME requires us to think differently about how we model
our bibliographic descriptions, but it is actually a fairly straightforward
modeling of a traditional bibliographic description. It's also not
particularly "top heavy" (I don't quite know what you mean by this -- there
are no tops in ontologies) with far more properties than classes in the
vocabulary. We need to learn skilsets that were developed outside
libraryland by the W3C.

Now if you want to see a conceptual and complicated ontology -- look at
CIDOC-CRM <>. It is an IFLA supported ISO standard
ontology for describing cultural heritage metadata. The new IFLA-LRM is
CIDOC-CRM compliant, it is core to FRBRoo, and will restructure RDA.

Can you please provide a source for your assertion about the failure of
many libraries to adopt RDA over AACR2?

Here is my GitHub repository of BIBFRAME compliant metadata:

Please watch the LD4P
<> project.
Within a few months we will have BIBFRAME metadata in production.

> 5) Discovery of library (and archival, etc.) materials no longer runs
> primarily on bibliographic metadata; it runs on megadata, which I define as
> a complicated mess of metadata, full text, and big data (including
> personalization data). As a result, there is less need for, and
> appreciation of, quality metadata.

I agree that we need more structured and quality metadata -- that is
exactly what BIBFRAME and other linked data vocabularies/ontologies are
striving for. Through linked data like BIBFRAME data, we can accurately
describe relationships. Also more precisely encode our data! Authority
maintenance is much easier and accurate with URIs than strings of access

I'm happy to talk to you more about this before your presentation. Feel
free to send me a direct message or give me  a call. Beset of luck with
your research.

Amber Billey

PCC BIBFRAME Task Group Co-Chair

Metadata Librarian
Columbia University Libraries
[log in to unmask]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Xu, Amanda <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thanks a lot, Karen!
> For Jeff, in fall 2016, I participated in a series of webinars called
> "From MARC to BIBFRAME: Linked Data on the Ground."  The webinars were
> sponsored by ALCTS.  You can find the webinars from
>  The speakers of the webinars discussed the status of BIBFRAME
> implementation at their libraries.  I am wondering if it is a good idea for
> you to reach out to the speakers of the webinars.  It might help you
> prepare for your presentation from different perspectives.
> Sincerely yours,
> Amanda
> ---
> Amanda Xu
> Metadata Analyst Librarian
> Cataloging and Metadata Department
> University of Iowa Libraries
> 100 Main Library (LIB)
> Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
> 319-335-5075 (voice)
> [log in to unmask] (email)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 3:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Failure
> On 2/1/17 1:25 PM, Jeff Edmunds wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:43:33 -0800, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Widely adopted means? By whom?
> > Widely adopted = adopted by a majority of libraries (of which, in the
> > US, according to ALA, there are approximately 119,000, the vast
> > majority of which use MARC now)
> >
> >> What if some people use MARC, some use, some use
> >> BIBFRAME, some use RDA in RDF, others use Dublin Core, still others
> >> use the DPLA data format, yet all exchange data? Would that be a
> failure?
> >>
> > That's fine of course, but you're muddying the waters: my claim is
> > that NO ONE (or virtually no one) will use BIBFRAME. It is impractical.
> Well, you're already wrong. Are you aware of that? Have you looked at the
> "LD" projects? [1]
> Honestly, I think you're getting yourself into a hole. Someone else in our
> profession did the same thing, claiming that Dublin Core was a failure.
> That person did not seem to know about libraries, archives, and others who
> were using it, or that it's the 2nd most used vocabulary in the linked data
> space, after RDF itself. You'd better have the facts to back up your
> thoughts.
> kc
> [1]
> >
> > Jeff
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]
> m: +1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600