Very well said! It would be great if something like this was on the
bibframe site so we can all reference it! :)


On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:34 PM, violeta ilik <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 👏
> 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>

Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049