Am 26.11.2012 09:43, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
But I still find it very hard to accept that BIBFRAME in its first draft (if I understand it correctly) doesn't seem to accommodate for modeling a work in the abstract FRBR sense - at least not in the bibliographic part of BIBFRAME. Perhaps it would be possible to model a FRBR work in the "Authority" section of BIBFRAME, as obviously a FRBR work can be a subject. I share Robert Maxwell's concern, though, that BIBFRAME here seems to codify a certain form of technical implementation, namely that of bibliographic vs. authority data. ...
A lot of speculation. We have to simply ask for the reasoning that resulted in the draft as it is. Maybe - another speculation - they came to the conclusion (after studying Jim Weinheimer's musings, for instance) that WEMI is impracticable or not desirable or not worth the time and effort. Is there none of the insiders here to provide some background on all this? B.E.
