This is getting asked about more and more. I thought I should open a bug for it. There is an open source tool to convert marc to bibframe we should maybe watch: https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe
I don't know how out of date this is and I haven't been following the BIBFRAME listserv but according to the Library of Congress website: "BIBFRAME is far from an environment that you could move to yet. The model and its components are still in discussion and development -- a work in progress. When it is more mature, vendors and suppliers will need time to adjust services to accommodate it. And then we can expect a mixed environment for some time." http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/faqs/#q08 -- I see Zepheira working with LoC, SirsiDynix, and the NLM... but BIBFRAME still seems like a distant future kind of thing... even though libraries want it now because they're hearing it's the new hotness. Regarding that tool: "This XQuery version was developed by the Library of Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office. This transformation is under development and does not at this time represent a canonical transformation of MARC Bib data to BIBFRAME resources. It is made available for evaluation and comment." https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe I don't think XQuery will be very usable for us, but certainly something useful to watch. Might also be worth looking at https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe-python although it doesn't look like it's been touched in years whereas the XQuery version was updated only 5 days ago.
It might be worthwhile to follow the following as well: http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/implementation/register.html It doesn't seem like it's reliably updated, but it provides some info... It looks like the National Library of Medicine and Zepheira have actually made a fork of BIBFRAME called BF Lite. Check out "June 12, 2015" from the below link. https://github.com/fallgrennj/BIBFRAME-NLM -- I fear that public perception of BIBFRAME will be similar to that of RDA. That people will want it without understanding what it is, because they don't want to be behind the curve. For my part, I think we should keep an eye on BIBFRAME, but we might be waiting a long time...
Almost 6 years has gone by. What do we think about BIBFRAME today?
(In reply to Magnus Enger from comment #3) > Almost 6 years has gone by. What do we think about BIBFRAME today? The only time I ever hear about BIBFRAME is in the context of Ex Libris Alma and it looks like they just map their internal format into BIBFRAME for export/display: https://developers.exlibrisgroup.com/alma/integrations/linked_data/bibframe/ I haven't heard anything about it in years really. Its name gets mentioned here or there in some professional librarian circles but nothing significant that I've noticed.
It sounds like BIBFRAME might be making some slow progress again: "The Library of Congress is planning for 2021 to be an expansion year for its BIBFRAME cataloging operation as a large project involves bringing all the cataloging staff into BIBFRAME. This means that interchange using both BIBFRAME and MARC will also expand, as will the potential for new developments for systems based on either format. This Update will hear about plans of Ex Libris for Linked Data -- How bridging the BIBFRAME and MARC workflows might work in the Folio development -- And an OCLC intent to be able to “adroitly” consume and export BIBFRAME data." https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/news/bibframe-update-mw2021.html
(In reply to Henry Bolshaw from comment #5) > It sounds like BIBFRAME might be making some slow progress again: > > "The Library of Congress is planning for 2021 to be an expansion year for > its BIBFRAME cataloging operation as a large project involves bringing all > the cataloging staff into BIBFRAME. This means that interchange using both > BIBFRAME and MARC will also expand, as will the potential for new > developments for systems based on either format. This Update will hear about > plans of Ex Libris for Linked Data -- How bridging the BIBFRAME and MARC > workflows might work in the Folio development -- And an OCLC intent to be > able to “adroitly” consume and export BIBFRAME data." > > > https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/news/bibframe-update-mw2021.html Thanks for that, Henry. That's interesting to know! For what it's worth, I don't think we need to worry about a triplestore/graph store for a long time. I think we could already store BIBFRAME records in the biblio_metadata table. I suppose the hardest thing would be deciding whether a particular biblio uses BIBFRAME or MARC as its primary record, and then making sure there was an appropriate transformation at indexing time.