Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

I haven't posted to this list yet, but I have been following it. Here
are some thoughts I have: BIBFRAME doesn't yet exist. It will be a long
time yet in the making; at least I hope there will be some sort of real
testing done on different user communities--not only running it by a few
catalogers for a few months--before anything is adopted, and then what
will really take a lot of time will be for catalogs to adapt to it...

As a result, schemabibex can exist not only *long* before BIBFRAME will,
but it can also start being used very quickly and if it is well done,
has the potential to become very popular and widespread. It seems to me
that relating all of that to FRBR can only hinder the adoption. While I
have discovered that, when in a community of catalogers, questioning the
validity of FRBR is about as popular as questioning the Trinity in front
of a group of bishops, outside the cataloger community--and this
includes non-cataloging librarians--FRBR describes something very
strange, where you will find very little agreement about the goals,
purposes and even validity of FRBR.

Anyway, BIBFRAME itself is already overthrowing the FRBR data model, in
favor of instance and work, or what I have always called description and
headings.

It just seems to me that after schemabibex is adopted, it will 1) exist,
and 2) be easy to implement. Therefore it should be used quite widely.
BIBFRAME will have to adapt to schemabibex.

-- 
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html