But of what value is this so-called ‘Linked Data community’ for MY community? Does direct connection of my local bibliographic records to the internet really (REALLY) equate with better information retrieval for my community? Why should I follow errant standards that do not bestow any perceivable benefit over my current tried-and-true standards—especially when there is a very high, unaffordable cost involved? These are some of the questions that direct the resistance of so many of us to buying into the ‘snake oil’ of RDA and BIBFRAME.
(Really not trying to stir up this battle once again.)
Just two cents more—other side of the coin,
Michael Ayres | Technical Services Manager
City of Irving l Irving Public Library System
801 W. Irving Blvd., Irving, TX 75060
P: (972) 721-2764 F: (972) 721-2329
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]
GOV] On Behalf Of FunnyFace Internet
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Failure
The whole point of RDA and BIBFRAME is moving to Linked Data community for better information retrieval and connectivity on the Internet. During the transitional period, some libraries follow MARC, and some follow BIBFRAME. But eventually we all should follow the same standards - RDA and BIBFRAME. If each library follows different standards as a long term plan, do we lose the original purpose of RDA and BIBFRAME?
BIBFRAME is a very complex thing to develop. It is not just a piece of software, but vocabularies and classes. Cataloging librarians are very meticulous (the most meticulous type of librarians) and hard to please. BiBFRAME has to become perfect through use and continuous effort. It will never work in a vacuum like now. Someone has to start using it. There is no way turning back at this point.
Just two cents.