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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  February 2012

BIBFRAME February 2012

Subject:

Re: The German National Library's response

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:11:48 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (93 lines)

On 2/9/12 2:14 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:

>>> I was thinking about things like:
>>> - "cool" URIs - hash? or no?
>
> At least some technical experts think that the main weakness of the so
> called cool URIs is the need to maintain the domain name registration
> (and the organizations' inability to carry on with it for decades). See
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01670.html

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.

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.

>
>>> - PURLs v. agency domains
>
> I would prefer persistent identifiers to cool URIs in this case. But the
> PID discussion should not concentrate on PURLs only. There are three
> other persistent identifier systems (DOI, Handle and URN) which are more
> popular and better standardized.

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. 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?

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
>

--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

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

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