On 14/02/2013 22:20, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
If the MARC/Bibframe, Bibframe/MARC, cross walks are open source, might others who can not afford new ILS adopt this practice?
This is the big question. I have not followed Bibframe development that closely, other than what has been generally proposed, and I am still not completely sure as to its purpose. It will be interesting to know if libraries AND web developers are supposed to use the same Bibframe, or if Bibframe will be aimed at non-library implementations while libraries will have, or keep, a more specialized format for their own purposes. If libraries and web developers are supposed to use the same Bibframe, then it seems to me that this single format must be simplified compared to what we have now.
If it is for general consumption, that is, for non-library implementations, it will have to be far simpler than what we have now if it is to be used by the widest group of web developers. As it becomes more complex, the fewer that will be able to implement. Changing to a web-friendlier XML-type format is one thing and will be a major improvement. Today there are several possibilities in addition to RDF, which is pretty complex, but I am still not sure: who will Bibframe be aimed at?
With open-source catalogs, any library can probably handle almost anything, but if the idea of Bibframe is to get rid of the primacy of Z39.50 exchange for records and go toward XML-type formats, that could really open up the market for catalogs.