Failure-lack of success, another though simplified definition.

condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends

Two definitions of failure.

At any rate I wasn’t going to jump into this fray but thought Id post my two little cents anyway. I don’t want this to break out into an all out war on Bibframe. It wont right?

Lets just say we truly don’t know  where Bibframe.  might end up. Technology and other vices may rule as to whether Bibframe will be fully implemented. But in the meantime its ok to begin and experiment with the possibility of a  truly non marc environment.

Ill cite I remember from way back when all talk of AACR3 and Im guessing work on that. Well, no AACR3 but in its place RDA. Just remembering.

So Im going to try and keep these issues in perspective. Hopefully we all can. I want both sides not just one sided.


Gail S.


Rose Library/MARBL

Emory University Library

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeff Edmunds
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 3:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] Failure


Failure = failure to be widely accepted or adopted, and thus subsequently abandoned after an extraordinary amount of time, attention, and hand-wringing devoted to it.


>Well, before you go further you had better have a solid definition of
>"failure" that your audience at least understands, even if it doesn't
>agree to it.

On 2/1/17 7:45 AM, Jeff Edmunds wrote:
> All,
> Next month I'll be giving a presentation entitled "Life after MARC?: The Future of Discovery." One of the central theses of the talk is that, unlike MARC, BIBFRAME will never be widely adopted. I would be very curious to hear arguments countering my key 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.).
> 2) 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.
> 3) 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?
> 4) 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.
> 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.
> Counterarguments are welcome, either on- or off-list.
> Thank you,
> Jeff

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

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).