This thesis explores the debate surrounding BIBFRAME (Bibliographic Framework) in a listserv provided by the Library of Congress (2011-2022). A combined qualitative and quantitative content analysis revealed tensions in the forum between those who prefer MARC (Machine-Readable Cataloging) and those who prefer BIBFRAME. From a theoretical perspective, these tensions are explained as originating in a conflict between two incommensurable bibliographic paradigms. It is argued that standards like MARC, AACR (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules) and ISBD (International Standard Bibliographic Description) belong to a ”record-based” paradigm whereas BIBFRAME, FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and RDA (Resource Description and Access) belong to an ”E-R” paradigm, based around the concepts of entities and relations. The results revealed that the debate is made up of two distinct dimensions: one theoretical technical and one social. The theoretical-technical tensions are, in turn, shown to revolve around two questions: whether MARC is obsolete and whether BIBFRAME is the right way forward. The social tensions stem from a divide between the library community and the IT people. The results provide evidence on the need for clearer communication on BIBFRAME, regarding its goals and design choices. Likewise, there is need for a closer integration between the library community and the IT world.