Differenze tra le versioni di "Utente:Marchitelli/Sandbox/voce due"

nessun oggetto della modifica
(Pagina svuotata completamente)
'''BIBFRAME''' (Bibliographic Framework) is a [[data model]] for bibliographic description. BIBFRAME was designed to replace the [[MARC standards]], and to use [[linked data]] principles to make [[Bibliographic database|bibliographic data]] more useful both within and outside the library community.<ref name=web-of-data>{{cite report|last=Miller|first=Eric|title=Bibliographic Framework as a Web of Data: Linked Data Model and Supporting Services|url=http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf|publisher=Library of Congress|accessdate=28 May 2014|author2=Uche Ogbuji |author3=Victoria Mueller |author4=Kathy MacDougall |date=21 November 2012}}</ref>
The MARC Standards, which BIBFRAME seeks to replace, were developed by [[Henriette Avram]]<ref>{{cite web|last=Schudel|first=Matt|title=Henriette Avram, 'Mother of MARC,' Dies|url=http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0605/avram.html|publisher=Library of Congress|accessdate=June 22, 2013}}</ref> at the US [[Library of Congress]] during the 1960s. By 1971, MARC formats had become the national standard for dissemination of [[Bibliographic database|bibliographic data]] in the United States, and the international standard by 1973.
In a provocatively titled 2002 article, library technologist [[Roy Tennant]] argued that "MARC Must Die", noting that the standard was old; used only within the library community; and designed to be a display, rather than a storage or retrieval format.<ref name="tennant">{{cite journal|last=Tennant|first=Roy|title=MARC Must Die|journal=Library Journal|volume=127|issue=17|pages=26–27|url = http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2002/10/ljarchives/marc-must-die/}}</ref> A 2008 report from the Library of Congress wrote that MARC is "based on forty-year old techniques for data management and is out of step with programming styles of today."<ref name=on-the-record>{{cite report|title=On the Record|publisher=The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control|url=http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf|date=9 January 2008}}</ref>
In 2012, the Library of Congress announced that it had contracted with Zepheira, a data management company, to develop a linked data alternative to MARC.<ref name=zepheira-release>{{cite web|title=The Library of Congress Announces Modeling Initiative|url=http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/news/bibframe-052212.html|work=BIBFRAME|publisher=Library of Congress|accessdate=28 May 2014}}</ref> Later that year, the library announced a new model called MARC Resources (MARCR).<ref name=mccallum>{{cite web|last=McCallum|first=Sally|title=Bibliographic Framework Initiative Approach for MARC Data as Linked Data|url=http://igelu.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/IGeLU-sally-McCallum.pptx|work=7th Annual IGeLU Conference|accessdate=30 May 2014|date=13 September 2012}}</ref> That November, the library released a more complete draft of the model, renamed BIBFRAME.<ref name=web-of-data /> {{refn|group=nb|For a detailed history of discontent with the MARC standards between Tennant's 2002 article and the 2012 announcement of BIBFRAME, see {{cite journal|last=Kroeger|first=Angela|title=The Road to BIBFRAME: The Evolution of the Idea of Bibliographic Transition into a Post-MARC Future|journal=Cataloging & Classification Quarterly|volume=51|issue=8|pages=873–890|doi=10.1080/01639374.2013.823584}}}}
The Library of Congress released version 2.0 of BIBFRAME in 2016.<ref name="overview20">{{Cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/bibframe2-model.html|title=Overview of the BIBFRAME 2.0 Model|last=|first=|date=21 Apr 2016|website=Library of Congress|publisher=Library of Congress|access-date=6 July 2016}}</ref>
[[File:Bibframe2-model.jpg|thumb|Illustration of BIBFRAME 2.0 model, with three core levels of abstraction (in blue)—Work, Instance, Item—and three related classes (in orange)—Agent, Subject, Event.]]
BIBFRAME is expressed in [[Resource Description Framework|RDF]] and based on three categories of abstraction (work, instance, item), with three additional classes (agent, subject, event) that relate to the core categories.<ref name=overview20 /> While the ''work'' entity in BIBFRAME is roughly analogous to the ''work'' entity in [[International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions|IFLA's]] [[Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records]] (FRBR) entity relationship model, BIBFRAME's ''instance'' entity is a conflation of the FRBR ''expression'' and ''manifestation'' entities. This represents an apparent break with FRBR and the FRBR-based [[Resource Description and Access]] (RDA) cataloging code.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Mitchell|first=Erik|title=Three Case Studies in Linked Open Data|journal=Library Technology Reports|volume=49|issue=5|pages=26–43|accessdate=28 May 2014}}</ref> However, the original BIBFRAME model argues that the new model "can reflect the FRBR relationships in terms of a graph rather than as hierarchical relationships, after applying a reductionist technique."<ref name=web-of-data /> Since both FRBR and BIBFRAME have been expressed in RDF, interoperability between the two models is technically possible.<ref>{{cite conference |title=Highlights of Library Data Models in the Era of Linked Open Data|last1=Zapounidou|first1=Sofia|last2=Sfakakis|first2=Michalis|last3=Papatheodorou|first3=Christos|date=November 19–22, 2013|publisher=Springer|booktitle=Metadata and Semantics Research|isbn=9783319034362|pages=396–407|conferenceurl=http://mtsr2013.teithe.gr/|conference=Metadata and Semantics Research Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece|editor1=Emmanouel Garoufallou|editor2=Jane Greenberg}}</ref>
===Specific formats===
While the BIBFRAME model currently includes a ''serial'' entity, there are still a number of issues to be addressed before the model can be used for [[Periodical literature|serials]] cataloging.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Fallgren|first=Nancy|author2=Lauruhn, Michael |author3=Reynolds, Regina Romano |author4= Kaplan, Laurie |title=The Missing Link: The Evolving Current State of Linked Data for Serials|journal=The Serials Librarian|date=2 May 2014|volume=66|issue=1-4|pages=123–138|doi=10.1080/0361526X.2014.879690}}<!--|accessdate=30 May 2014--></ref> BIBFRAME lacks several serials-related data fields available in MARC.<ref>{{cite web|last1=kiegel|title=MARC 008 for continuing resources|url=https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe/issues/169|website=GitHub|accessdate=22 April 2015|ref=github165}}</ref>
A 2014 report was very positive on BIBFRAME's suitability for describing audio and video resources. However, the report also expressed some concern about the high-level ''Work'' entity, which is unsuitable for modeling certain audio resources.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Van Malssen |first1=Kara |title=BIBFRAME AV Modeling Study: Defining a Flexible Model for Description of Audiovisual Resources |url=http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/pdf/bibframe-avmodelingstudy-may15-2014.pdf |publisher=Library of Congress |accessdate=1 August 2014 |ref=van-malssen |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140810111936/http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/pdf/bibframe-avmodelingstudy-may15-2014.pdf |archivedate=10 August 2014 |df= }}</ref>
* Colorado College's Tutt Library has created several experimental apps using BIBFRAME.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Nelson|first=Jeremy|title=Building a Library App Portfolio with Redis and Django|journal=code4lib|date=2013|issue=19|url=http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7349|accessdate=30 May 2014}}</ref>
* 14 other research libraries are testing the model.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/implementation/register.html|title=BIBFRAME Implementation Register|accessdate=6 July 2016}}</ref>
* ExLibris published a roadmap to implement BIBFRAME in its library systems, which includes a MARC-to-BIBFRAME transformation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.proquest.com/about/news/2017/Ex-Libris-Increases-Library-Connectivity-with-Implementation-BIBFRAME.html|title=Ex Libris Increases Library Connectivity with Implementation of BIBFRAME Roadmap |accessdate=8 May 2017}}</ref>
==Related initiatives and standards==
* [[Resource Description and Access|RDA]], [[Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records|FRBR]], [[FRBRoo]], [[Functional Requirements for Authority Data|FRAD]], and [[FRSAD]] are available in RDF in the Open Metadata Registry, a [[Metadata registry#Examples of public metadata registries|metadata registry]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://metadataregistry.org|title=Open Metadata Registry|last=|first=|date=|website=Open Metadata Registry: supporting metadata interoperability|language=en|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2017-04-30}}</ref>
* Schema Bib Extend project, a W3C-sponsored community group has worked to extend [[Schema.org]] to make it suitable for bibliographic description.<ref>{{cite web|last=Godby|first=Carol Jean|title=The Relationship between BIBFRAME and OCLC’s Linked-Data Model of Bibliographic Description: A Working Paper|url=http://oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/2013-05.pdf|accessdate=30 May 2014}}</ref>
==See also==
* [[Europeana]]
* [[Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records]] (FRBR)
* [[Functional Requirements for Authority Data]] (FRAD)
* [[FRSAD|Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data]] (FRSAD)
* [[International Standard Bibliographic Description]] (ISBD)
* [[Linked data]]
* [[Open Library]]
* [[Resource Description and Access]]
* [[Schema.org]]
==External links==
* [http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/ Official Website]
* [http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe Current BIBFRAME vocabularies]
{{Authority control}}
[[Category:Bibliography file formats]]
[[Category:Library automation]]
[[Category:Library cataloging and classification]]
[[Category:Library of Congress]]
[[Category:Metadata publishing]]
[[Category:Metadata standards]]
[[Category:Semantic Web]]