Bravo Amber!

Violeta Ilik

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Nancy Lorimer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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:
> 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
> 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 <(212)%20851-2452>
> [log in to unmask]
> @justbilley
> 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
> --
> Nancy Lorimer
> Head, Metadata Dept
> Stanford University [log in to unmask] <(650)%20725-8819>