I understand your frustrations (I started out as a cataloger, too, just at
the dawn of the computer age in libraries), but let me address a few of
your concerns about RDA.  First, let me point out that the article Karen
and I wrote in 2007 should be viewed as a historical piece. It was written
before RDA and DCMI got together to start building the RDA Vocabularies--it
no longer reflects the reality of how RDA works in reality. I'd really
suggest you take a look at the RDA Registry ( where
the vocabularies and their documentation can be found. Please feel free to
ask questions if what you see doesn't make sense.  (You should note that
many of the element set and value vocabulary information exists in
translation--this is a key to why RDA is much more successful in Europe).

The BibFrame initiative has been successful in convincing folks that
BibFrame = LD, but that's marketing, not reality.

Thanks for starting this conversation!


On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Joy Nelson <[log in to unmask]>

> Michael,
> I would argue that it all depends on what you veiw your community as.  If
> you your community consists of fellow catalogers, then you could argue that
> Linked Data provides you no benefit and no improvement over tried and true
> standards.  Although others could say that the 're-usability' of linked
> data would be of value to catalogers in streamlining their workflows.  I
> can see why their is resistance to a new cataloging standard from technical
> services.  The control of the information by catalogers is a source of
> pride for them.  Accuracy in the information is a current tenet of the
> profession.  And Linked Data brings an unknown element regarding the
> control and accuracy of that information.
> On the flip side, if you view your community as the community at large -
> other librarians, researches and patrons, the value of Linked Data takes a
> different focus.  As a user I'm not concerned with correct punctuation in
> marc tags or even the right data in the right tags generally speaking.  ILS
> system usually narrowly focuses on author,title,subject when providing
> search results.  Tags with publication information and series would also be
> of value in some searches.  Many of the other tags are locked into 5XX tags
> and generally only searchable via keyword search.  As a user I would love
> to have that information more readily accessible and linked to other
> records - this is something that would benefit researches mainly and may or
> may not have much practical application to public libraries.
> A public library community at large would benefit from seeing the
> libraries holdings displayed on the web.  If I'm looking for a book, I want
> to see my library's results on the first page, not buried on subsequent
> pages of google if it displays at all.  It seems this aspect of linked data
> would directly impact public libraries struggling to show their value in
> some communities.  If the resources are hidden, they are potentially
> underutilized and possibly underfunded as a result.  It may be possible
> that an implementation of linked data to showcase library resources could
> be adopted by libraries as a first step into linked data that doesn't
> require a rethinking of their current marc processes.  When (and if)
> translation tools are available, the marc could be transformed into basic
> triples, made available to web crawlers and direct traffic to your library.
> Joy Nelson
> ByWater Solutions
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Michael Ayres <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>> 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
>> [log in to unmask] | <>
>> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]] *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.
>> Sharon/Rider University
> --
> Joy Nelson
> Director of Migrations
> ByWater Solutions <>
> Support and Consulting for Open Source Software
> Office: Fort Worth, TX
> Phone/Fax (888)900-8944
> What is Koha? <>