On Feb 2, 2017 7:21 AM, "Gordon Dunsire" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

"I do not understand why RDA cataloging examples and implementations have not picked up Bibframe as a prerequisite. They seem like not being made for each other, which is confusing and kind of bizarre.": I think the second point is answered earlier in the paragraph: "It is so simple that it even does not follow FRBR ..."

There are other reasons why RDA does not regard BIBFRAME as a prequisite:

It is not stable.

Its functional requirements are unclear.


To the extent that BIBFRAME's functional requirements are clear, your remarks above are not signs of success. Remember that the goal of the bibframe effort was set by the LC report on the RDA test, and it's purpose was to establish a non MARC based approach for carrying RDA data. The report did not call for establishing a new conceptual model, and this may have been unwise, and contributed to the instability noted.  

A different  starting point would have been to start from the basis of FRBRoo, which is a rigorously defined FRBR based model, and define any simplified or extended ontology in alignment with that. Such an approach would also consider and make explicit the functions that a less record based approach could benefit, and what sort of enabling workflows, infrastructure, and architecture might be needed to support those goals.