Kevin: MARC is limiting us [libraries], especially in the realm of multilingual, non-latin script resources. We are not reaping the benefits of more contemporary discovery systems if we stick with MARC #eubfws2024
Interesting question: How much will BIBFRAME cost? - How sustainable is it compared to MARC? - What's the cost of not implementing BIBFRAME? #eubfws2024
[If I have a set of vendor-supplied MARC records and map them to BIBFRAME with URIs from others' datasets (eg WorldCat Entities or Wikidata) who does the new dataset belong to?] #eubfws2024
An interesting point again about the need for library metadata to be open so that it can used as Linked Open Data (in BIBFRAME or another format) - [I wonder how this will work in practice for vendor-supplied or shelf-ready metadata; can libraries legally make this open?] #eubfws2024
What can we do to encourage our organisation to think about and move to BIBFRAME? - Just do it! Even if you have to start small with a pilot you will begin to build up the evidence to support a larger implementation [easier said than done] #eubfws2024
Niklas: There is more than one semantic web because there is more than one model for linked data. BIBFRAME should be a subway map not a detailed street map. #eubfws2024
Comment from Richard Wallis: What about non-library domains? Do they understand BIBFRAME? Probably not! It is obscure to those information organisations that use other data formats like schema.org#eubfws2024
A question about interoperability and maintaining openness, both open data and open infrastructure. Libraries need to ensure that their BIBFRAME data-sets don't end up locked inside the black box of a commercial system, it has to be Linked OPEN Data #eubfws2024
But there are different versions of implementation - you can still maintain you current (MARC) cataloguing workflows and systems and have BIBFRAME as the discovery experience, or you could implement root and branch with a view to cataloguing natively in BIBFRAME #eubfws2024