Panel 1: BIBFRAME and Beyond

There is an ongoing uptake of BIBFRAME and a general movement towards replacing MARC21 as the model for library data interoperability. This brings new perspectives for the means and practices of our current data exchange routines, both within and beyond libraries. It also stands in contrast to the simpler model for exchange that Dublin Core terms enable. While both DC terms and BIBFRAME are based on RDF, whether these vocabularies are at odds or complementary is still an open question. Is the net result a semantic convergence or divergence? Semantic technology promises interoperability, but how does the current practices of using linked data aid in that?

How will changes in resource description techniques affect the different needs within libraries, such as identification, organisation, selection? And is “record exchange” still the way we think about sharing descriptions about our library resources in a web-based graph-oriented world? The methods for copying and curating data manually need to be contrasted with linking, automatic normalisation and caching. Aggregation needs to be contrasted with combined descriptions about the same entity from multiple sources, where provenance of each piece of data can be kept. Can we lessen the need for maintenance of multiple descriptions about the same thing? Criteria for determining sameness is likely a crucial part of doing so.

For combinations of descriptions from multiple sources, the data either needs to use the same terms initially, or be transformed into a uniform result for effective services. It is envisioned that vocabulary alignments can be used for automatic consolidation, but where are we in practice? Should we demand more of our standards and systems? Will there be an increased demand in data conversion in the future, rather than less? How does the use of Application Profiles affect this?

It may be reasonable to expect that our linked data practices should work effectively across knowledge institutions of varying capabilities and contextual bounds. But how does the quality of various library catalogues compare to crowd-sourced descriptions of these resources? Talking about books and other creative works, their varying modes of publication and access is not an exact science It hinges upon context of use. Are the detailed descriptions of authors more trustworthy when derived from sources such as biographies? Can we distribute and delegate that trust? What about other domains of knowledge, such as geographical and historical knowledge?