Print

Print


On Feb 2, 2017 7:21 AM, "Gordon Dunsire" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

"I do not understand why RDA cataloging examples and implementations have
not picked up Bibframe as a prerequisite. They seem like not being made for
each other, which is confusing and kind of bizarre.": I think the second
point is answered earlier in the paragraph: "It is so simple that it even
does not follow FRBR ..."

There are other reasons why RDA does not regard BIBFRAME as a prequisite:

It is not stable.

Its functional requirements are unclear.

Quite.

To the extent that BIBFRAME's functional requirements *are* clear, your
remarks above are not signs of success. Remember that the goal of the
bibframe effort was set by the LC report on the RDA test, and it's purpose
was to establish a non MARC based approach for carrying RDA data. The
report did not call for establishing a new conceptual model, and this may
have been unwise, and contributed to the instability noted.

A different  starting point would have been to start from the basis of
FRBRoo, which *is* a rigorously defined FRBR based model, and define any
simplified or extended ontology in alignment with that. Such an approach
would also consider and make explicit the functions that a less record
based approach could benefit, and what sort of enabling workflows,
infrastructure, and architecture might be needed to support those goals.

Simon