LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  February 2012

BIBFRAME February 2012

Subject:

Re: The German National Library's response

From:

"Hickey,Thom" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:50:28 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (182 lines)

I like actionable URIs as identifiers, but agree that the creator of the
identifier may be better left out of the URI.

PURLs and VIAF IDs are examples of identifiers that use a domain name
specific to themselves, not the agency maintaining them (in both cases
OCLC).  

The separate domain names make them much cooler.

--Th

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Juha Hakala
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] The German National Library's response

Hello,

Karen Coyle wrote:

> Juha, thanks for the info regarding IETF activity. The issue I see
with 
> URNs is not the structure but the minting: should libraries begin to 
> link their data I see a need for thousands or even tens of thousands
of 
> identifiers (hundreds of thousands?) when we figure out a way to make 
> library holdings available to the linked data space. Surely we'll need

> at least an identifier for each library. At least URIs piggy-back on
the 
> domain system, which already exists.

Yes, a lot of identifiers will be needed. And if someone prefers to use 
URNs for this purpose, RFC 3188bis (the revised namespace registration 
request for National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs) makes it clear that 
these identifiers can be assigned to data elements as well.

Where these URN:NBNs resolve to and what kind of services they will be 
able to support will depend on the technical infrastructure available.
> 
> Definitely, this gives us something to think about, and I have no
doubt 
> that we could develop some kind of naming/identifying system to carry 
> this data. Obviously the first step is to figure out what we need to 
> identify, a kind of requirements study.

Yes; and in addition we may need to consider what kind of services the 
identified things require.

> What I dislike about the persistent identifier is that you lose the
link 
> to the originating agency that you have in the URI. That might be just
a 
> "human thing" - that I feel better when looking at the URI that I can 
> see WHO is responsible. 

A persistent identifier may show the originating agency as well. Whether

they do or don't, depends on the identifier system used. With URN:NBN 
the namespace specific string (the identifier part of the URN) may be 
semantic, if that is the preference of the organization assigning those 
identifiers. But in the long run it may not be a good idea to include 
the originating agency into the identifier, since organisations (and 
even more so, their domain names) may be more short-lived than the 
things they create. Cool URIs, just like semantic identifiers, may tell 
who originated the resource, but there is a good chance that they do not

tell who is currently responsible for keeping the resource available. A 
different method for finding this out must be available.

ARKs, of course, give you both, at least in
> theory. Is anyone using the "?" feature of ARKs that lets you query
for 
> that information? Should such info be part of our best practices?

I don't know if the "?" and "??" features of ARK are in use, and if so, 
by whom. John Kunze may be able to tell that. But I do think that 
providing this functionality in a PID system is a good idea, and will 
"lend" it into the URN system (in case John doesn't mind ;-)). Although 
the practical implementation in the URN system will probably be an 
option of retrieving preservation metadata / rights metadata about the 
resource.

Revised version of the URN syntax (RFC2141bis) allows the use of <query>

and <fragment>. <query> will never be part of the URN, but it could be 
used to carry service-related information. For example, this base URN:

http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-7612-1

provides the user the default service (splash page describing the 
resource, and providing a link to the book), but this URN:

http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-7612-1?I2C

will supply descriptive metadata about the resource in the default 
format, provided that the resolution service knows how to deal with the 
service request in <query> (I2C = URI to resource description).

In the context of linked data, we might be interested in enabling for 
instance retrieval of the definition of a concept in the chosen language

(?ENG for English, ?SWE for Swedish, and so on). Whatever linking 
mechanisms are used (PIDs, cool URIs or something else) they should 
enable us to do whatever needs to be done.

Links are an essential feature in linked data, and we should plan 
carefully the implementation of this functionality - and not take for 
instance the functionality cool URIs are currently providing as the 
predetermined basis for our work.

All the best,

Juha
> 
> kc
> 
>>
>>>> - what should the URI resolve to?
>>
>> URN-related RFCs are currently being revised (see
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/). I am currently writing a new
>> version of RFC 2483, which specifies the resolution services URN can
>> provide. In the present RFC 2483 the list of services is fixed. RFC
>> 2483bis will be based on the idea that IANA should establish a
registry
>> of informal and formal resolution services. Then URN user communities
>> could register new services at will (and parameters to these
services,
>> for instance for requesting descriptive metadata about the resource
in
>> different formats).
>>
>> Existing persistent identifier systems provide a diverse set of
>> services. With ARK, for instance, it is possible to check the
>> preservation commitment of the organisation holding a resource. I
don't
>> know if the PID systems will become more homogeneous in this respect
in
>> the future.
>>
>> Nobody knows what the URIs utilized within this initiative should
>> resolve to, but I am sure that the mechanism to be built should be
>> flexible so that it can be adjusted to meet the future needs we don't
>> foresee yet.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Juha
>>
>>>>
>>>> That kind of thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone know an answer to any of these questions? Therefore, I
>>> think, no URI is better than no URI at all. Use brief and simple and
>>> easily memorized codes for vocabularies like the terms in 337-338,
and
>>> use IDnumbers for names and subjects and titles.
>>> Any implementation can easily relate them to all sorts of URIs that
may
>>> be in current use or follow best practice or resolve to something
>>> useful for the purpose at hand. Verbal terms need changes and are
>>> language-bound, URLs are perishable, only codes and numbers are
robust,
>>> easy to handle, and versatile.
>>>
>>> B.Eversberg
>>
> 

-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor, standardisation and IT

  The National Library of Finland
  P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503), FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Email [log in to unmask], tel +358 50 382 7678

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager