Print

Print


Amber,

What a perfect reply!
Nancy

On 2/1/2017 4:23 PM, Amber Billey wrote:
> 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:
>
> http://www.share-vde.org/sharevde/clusters?l=en
>
> As for BIBFLOW, here are their preliminary findings:
>
> https://bibflow.library.ucdavis.edu/category/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 <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/>. 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:
>
> https://github.com/amberbilley/PCC_BIBFRAME
>
> Please watch the LD4P 
> <https://wiki.duraspace.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=74515029> 
> 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 points.
>
> 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.
>
> Sincerely,
> Amber Billey
>
> PCC BIBFRAME Task Group Co-Chair
>
> Metadata Librarian
> Columbia University Libraries
> 212.851.2452
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> @justbilley
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Xu, Amanda <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[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
>     http://www.ala.org/alcts/confevents/upcoming/webinar/MARCBIBFRAME
>     <http://www.ala.org/alcts/confevents/upcoming/webinar/MARCBIBFRAME>.
>        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 <tel:319-335-5075> (voice)
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (email)
>
>
>
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>     [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>     Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 3:56 PM
>     To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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]
>     <mailto:[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 MARC+schema.org
>     <http://schema.org>, 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] https://ld4l.org/
>     >
>     > Jeff
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: +1-510-435-8234 <tel:%2B1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
>
>


-- 
Nancy Lorimer
Head, Metadata Dept
Stanford University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
650-725-8819