Print

Print


Simon, interestingly, this person[1] thinks that BIBFRAME is too much of
a conceptual model.

One of the problems that I have is that the actual vocabulary doesn't
always match the stated concepts. I had this experience recently with
the Zepheira version, bibfra.me [2], that people often call "BF-lite".
For example, "Agent" class includes the property "audience" from
Resource, but the definition of "audience" talks about the content of a
resource. Things like that just jar me and don't seem logical. We went
through that with the earliest version of bibframe that didn't seem to
put things at the correct bibliographic level. A lot got fixed, it
seems. However, it's hard to judge the model when the execution brings
up questions, and when the model is defined in just a few sentences.
(Note: schema.org has many of the same problems, but there's a large
community that discusses them so one has hope that they'll eventually be
worked out.)(Also note: FRBR has this same problem with its user tasks,
that are covered in one paragraph each, and to me are totally vague.)

Admittedly, FRBRoo is much more rigorous. That said, it needs something
like the BF-lite presentation to make it understandable. The best thing
about BF-lite is its web site organization and presentation.

Also, shouldn't we be creating standards using methods like are used by
W3C and IETF - with open communities, wikis, mailing list archives, open
documents? That doesn't mean that organizations develop a standard and
then post it online, it means that the PROCESS needs to be visible so
that people can participate, or at least understand the end result. It's
very hard to understand a standard if you haven't seen what was
discussed, what was dismissed, what the thinking was. We're way behind
others in our standards process.

kc
[1]
https://redlibrarian.github.io/article/2017/02/01/library-systems-disaster.html
[2] http://bibfra.me/

On 2/2/17 12:24 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2017 7:21 AM, "Gordon Dunsire" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600