This document reviews recent literature on BIBFRAME, a new bibliographic framework that will replace MARC standards. BIBFRAME will encode catalog data using XML and linked data approaches to facilitate integration with the semantic web. Several articles describe the ongoing development of BIBFRAME, including its core classes of work, instance, and item. The ArtFrame project extended BIBFRAME for art objects. While BIBFRAME has potential benefits, challenges include developing software and gaining community consensus on replacing MARC. As implementation continues, BIBFRAME aims to improve the representation and sharing of library data.

1. BIBFRAME: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE 1
BIBFRAME: A Review of Recent Literature
Kyle Guzik
School of Library and Information Science, University of Southern Mississippi

2. BIBFRAME: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE 2
This report reviews recent literature concerning developments with the Bibliographic
Framework Initiative (BIBFRAME). The roots of BIBFRAME trace back to the development by the
Library of Congress (LC) of the Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) encoding language starting in
the 1960s (Chan and Salaba, 2017). The implementation of MARC revolutionized library cataloging
because MARC made it possible to search and access bibliographic records via computer, leading to
the eventual obsolescence of card catalogs. The current version of MARC, MARC 21 “is the standard
encoding system for library materials, and is widely used all over the world” (Chan and Salaba, 2017,
20). BIBFRAME will become the successor to MARC 21; the LC via its Network Development and
MARC Standards Office began the BIBFRAME initiative in 2011 (Chan and Salaba, 2017, 103). The
goal of BIBFRAME is to “translate MARC21 data into linked data” (Chan and Salaba, 2017, 30).
BIBFRAME may be understood as a model with four high-level entities: “Work, Instance, Authority,
and Annotation” (Chan and Salaba, 2017, 109). BIBFRAME will improve upon MARC 21 by using an
Extensible Markup Language (XML)- based encoding system. This will facilitate integration of library
cataloging information with non-library users of metadata such as Web search engines (Chan and
Salaba, 2017, 30).
Review of Literature
A review of publications concerning BIBFRAME from the past three years yields insights into
the nature of the development and implementation of the BIBFRAME model. Christman and King
(2020) describe the proceedings of a pre-conference workshop devoted to BIBFRAME and presented
at the NASIG (formerly, the North American Serials Interest Group, Inc.) 34th Annual Conference.
McCallum (2017) describes stages in the development of BIBFRAME. O’Keefe et al. (2019) describe
the ArtFrame project, an extension of BIBFRAME designed for the use of art catalogers. Park et al.
(2019) review and analyze literature relating to BIBFRAME to identify strengths and weaknesses of
the BIBFRAME model and “outline its purpose and key features” (549). Finally, Steele (2019)

3. BIBFRAME: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE 3
describes practical advantages of BIBFRAME and explains its relationship to machine-readable
metadata. By synthesizing this literature, this report examines recent progress made during the
ongoing transition from MARC to BIBFRAME.
BIBFRAME Basics
Christman and King (2020) document a recent workshop presented by Christman concerning
BIBFRAME. The original purpose of BIBFRAME’s progenitor MARC was to facilitate the production
of 3 X 5 catalog cards. MARC made it possible to share catalog information between libraries but
initially, only expert users were able to conduct searches via MARC records. Christman and King
(2020) describe Resource Description and Access (RDA) as an implementation of the Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. RDA and MARC “do not work well
together” (Christman and King, 2020, 18). The current system has disadvantages; the model is used
only between librarians, it requires correct punctuation to prevent data from losing its meaning, and the
model does not effectively represent hierarchical relationships (Christman and King, 2018, 18).
However, integration of the Library Reference Model (LRM) with RDA and BIBFRAME will
alter the system. BIBFRAME will make the work of library professionals easier by differentiating
between conceptual content (works) and physical manifestations (instances), unambiguously
identifying information entities such as authorities, and utilizing and clarifying relationships between
entities (Christman and King, 2017, 19). Christman and King (2020) then point out that some libraries,
particularly European ones such as the National Library of Sweden are already utilizing BIBFRAME to
conduct projects that use fully-linked data.
BIBFRAME Development
A key goal of BIBFRAME is realization of the potential of linked data. The LC has been
engaged in this process for more than 10 years; however as early as the late 1990’s the World Wide
Web Consortia (W3C) initiated linked data projects (McCallum, 2017, 71-72). Librarians have also

4. BIBFRAME: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE 4
participated in this process for years, linking data with strings (such as names or subjects) or numbers
(for example ISBNs). A recent practice is the use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Universal
Resource Identifiers (URIs) to name things and give machines the ability to look them up (McCallum,
2017, 72). LC created the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and made them “publicly
available as linked data in 2009;” subsequently LC added other vocabularies such as name authorities,
countries, and languages (McCallum, 2017, 73). The project of development of these “controlled lists
used in bibliographic standards” became the Library of Congress Linked Data Service (LDS)
(McCallum, 2017, 73).
The linked data standard Resource Description Framework (RDF) uses “triples” that can be
simply understood as simple grammatical sentences containing a subject, verb, and object (McCallum
2017, 73). Steele (2019) uses the terms subject, predicate, and object with the distinction being that a
predicate modifies an object rather than indicating an action the subject performs. McCallum (2017)
explains “one starts with a resource, and describes it with statements” (73). The philosophical concept
of ontology regards being, or what exists in reality. In information science, ontology concerns the
naming and definition of concepts and the definition of categories and relationships found in data
describing these concepts. BIBFRAME vocabularies draw from ontologies such as RDF and the
Metadata Authority Description Schema in RDF (MADSRDF). The BIBFRAME model is hierarchical
from the general to the specific with agent, event, place, topic, and temporal classes (name and subject
authority data) subdivided into work, instance, and item classes. This hierarchy more closely
resembles the FRBR/RDA model for bibliographic data. The scaffold created by ontologies used in
BIBFRAME adds meaning and provides an organizing principle that facilitates linking metadata.
The ArtFrame Project and BIBFRAME
O’Keefe (2019) describes BIBFRAME as “the core ontology for bibliographic description,”
which was created by LC (2). The ArtFrame Project, led by Columbia University Libraries with

5. BIBFRAME: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE 5
participation from major art institutions and the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA)
produced the Art & Rare Materials BIBFRAME Ontology Extension (ARM). Nonverbal works pose
unique challenges for catalogers. MARC lacks art-specific data elements such as “style, culture,
facture, physical condition, and conservation history” (O’Keefe, 2019, 6). In addition, like all MARC
records, MARC records for art objects cannot be shared or linked to outside the MARC environment.
Addressing these concerns, ARM consists of “47 classes and 45 object properties;” it also includes 3
separate ontologies: “Awards, Custodial History, and Measurements” (O’Keefe, 2019, 13-14). The
ArtFrame Group developed an art workform to test the ontology with 3 BIBFRAME work types: Text,
Object, and StillImage (O’Keefe, 2019, 17). They found that this proof of concept was viable although
incomplete. When BIBFRAME is fully implemented, ARM could be used to catalog art objects;
however, ARM is still under development.
Benefits and Challenges of BIBFRAME
Park et al. (2019) describe BIBFRAME as an “entity-relation model” similar to the FRBR
model (549). BIBFRAME uses URIs instead of text strings “to name entities and data values;” its main
class entities are work, instance, and item (Park et al., 2019, 549). BIBFRAME has the potential to
more usefully describe resources such as rare books and manuscripts, audiovisual materials, and serial
publications. Previous cataloging formats and content standards have struggled to describe these
resources. However, Park et al. (2019) identify challenges that could hinder the complete adoption of
BIBFRAME. One issue is that there is not yet universal consensus in the library community that
MARC needs to be retired. Park et al. (2019) also state that as of the time of their article’s publication,
only one major report has been published by early testers regarding the implementation of the model.
In this report, Godby (2013) found sufficient semantic equivalence between the vocabularies used in
BIBFRAME, FRBR, and Schema.org, a project involving Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
(OCLC), Bing, Google, Yahoo!, and Yandex “to create a standard set of metadata elements that are

6. BIBFRAME: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE 6
recognized and usable by the major search engines” (558). The property of sufficient semantic
equivalence between these models indicates that metadata could be converted from a BIBFRAME
format to one searchable by major search engines (Schema.org) without “significant loss of information
or descriptive power” (Park et al., 2019, 558). As there are 105 metadata standards in major current
usage, more research needs to be conducted regarding the compatibility of BIBFRAME with these
other standards (Park et al., 2019, 560). There are also very few software packages that make it
possible to maintain and use BIBFRAME data.
What Comes Next: Understanding BIBFRAME.
Like McCallum (2017) and Park et al. (2019), Steele (2018) identifies three core classes in the
BIBFRAME hierarchy: work, instance, and item. However, Steele (2018) clarifies that these are the
core classes used in BIBFRAME 2.0. BIBFRAME is still under development; originally, BIBFRAME
employed four core classes: Creative Work, Instance, Authority, and Annotation (Library of Congress,
2012). BIBFRAME core classes can be described with RDF triples. RDF triples are one component
required by the Semantic Web to make content machine-readable. According to Berners-Lee et al.
(2001), the “Semantic Web is not a separate Web but an extension of the current one, in which
information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in
cooperation” (34). Other components required for the Semantic Web are vocabularies and ontologies.
Vocabularies “define classes of objects, and relationships between these objects” (Steele, 2018, 516).
For Steele (2018) an ontology is a more complex vocabulary. Machines use RDF triples, vocabularies,
and ontologies to identify relationships between sources of data and generate more accurate search
results.
To explain how BIBFRAME is implemented in practice Steele (2018) describes how 40 LC
staff members converted 18 million MARC records into BIBFRAME records and created an additional
2,000 records during a pilot simulation of a BIBFRAME environment in 2015 (518). This successful

7. BIBFRAME: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE 7
pilot led to the initiation of a BIBFRAME 2.0 pilot project in 2016 (Steele, 2018, 518). As another
example of BIBFRAME in practice, Steele (2018) used the BIBFRAME 2.0 editor, which became
available during June 2018 at http://bibframe.org/tools/editor/, to catalog the musical Hamilton. This
editor reveals some of the advantages of BIBFRAME. Catalogers will no longer need to use MARC
tags and punctuation, instead, they can simply enter the metadata into corresponding fields in the editor.
Conclusion
BIBFRAME has been variously described as a model, a standard, an ontology, and an encoding
system for cataloging data. In fact, it might best be understood as all of these things. Scientific models
include conceptual representations of systems of ideas. Like FRBR, BIBFRAME encompasses a
system for organizing metadata. BIBFRAME makes use of standards like RDF to implement a
metadata linking structure using URIs. BIBFRAME uses XML to encode linked data in a machine-
readable format. BIBFRAME expands the scope and comprehensiveness of the types of information
that can be connected and interrelated as cataloging data. The ArtFrame Project is developing ARM to
enhance the ability of BIBFRAME to describe resources such as art objects. BIBFRAME uses RDF
triples, vocabularies, and ontologies to help realize the potential of the Semantic Web. Like the MARC
formats, BIBFRAME and more recently BIBFRAME 2.0 serves as a metadata encoding system. The
development of tools such as the BIBFRAME 2.0 editor demonstrates the potential of this system to
improve cataloging. Dispensing with MARC tags and punctuation, this editor and others like it will
increase the accuracy and efficiency of the metadata encoding process, allowing catalogers to save both
time and money. Significant progress has been made in the decade since the LC began work on
BIBFRAME. While BIBFRAME is still under development, some libraries are beginning to
implement it. Because of its many potential advantages, BIBFRAME represents a new opportunity for
American leadership and international collaboration in the field of library and information science.

8. BIBFRAME: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE 8
References:
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5), 34–
43. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34
Chan, L., & Salaba, A. (2017). Cataloging and classification: An introduction (4th ed.). Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Christman, D., & King, E. (2020). BIBFRAME basics: A crash course. Serials Librarian, 78(1–4), 17–
21. https://doi-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1080/0361526X.2020.1730375
Godby, C. J. (2013). The relationship between BIBFRAME and OCLC’s linked-data model of
bibliographic description: A working paper. OCLC Research.
www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/2013-05.pdf
Library of Congress. (2012). Bibliographic framework as a web of data: Linked data model and
supporting services. www.loc.gov/bibframe/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf
McCallum, S. H. (2017). BIBFRAME development. JLIS.it, Italian Journal of Library, Archives &
Information Science, 8(3), 71-85. doi:10.4403/jlis.it-12415
O’Keefe, E., Wacker, M., & L’Ecuyer-Coelho, M. C. (2019). The cutcome of the ArtFrame Project: A
domain-specific BIBFRAME exploration. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries
Society of North America, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1086/703508
Park, J. R., Richards, L. L., & Brenza, A. (2019). Benefits and challenges of BIBFRAME: Cataloging
special format materials, implementation, and continuing educational resources. Library Hi
Tech, 37(3), 549–565. https://doi-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1108/LHT-08-2017-0176
Steele, T. D. (2019). What comes next: understanding BIBFRAME. Library Hi Tech, 37(3), 513–524.
https://doi-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1108/LHT-06-2018-0085

9. BIBFRAME: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE 9
Figure 1
Word Cloud of Text Used in this Report