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:

"Huwig,Steve" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:22:41 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (55 lines)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] The German National Library's response

> 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.
> 

I don't think these two things are in conflict. No person should need to
enter a URI instead of typing or selecting "audio" or the equivalent in
their vocabulary to do their cataloging.

Effectively a URI is just another code or number, with the advantage
that the format and handling of the code has already been specified and
is in wide use. It should be noted that technically a URI is not
necessarily a URL.

URLs are perishable, but only in the same way as any other system of
codes and numbers is perishable. Breaking links in an agency's system
should be avoided. It would be as if the maintainers of the DDC were to
suddenly decide that the 400-499 range should now be about history
instead of languages.

The advantage of using URLs as identifiers is that they provide a
ready-made way for software to dereference them. Using another system of
codes and numbers will require special work on the part of implementers
-- and if it is intended to be both extensible and discoverable by the
world at large, it will have all of the downsides of a URL-based system
and none of the upsides.

One question is whether or not to have the identifiers in general all be
part of the same domain, reaching their actual resources through a
system of redirection (i.e. PURLs). This will decouple the management of
the identifiers from the management of the Internet host's domain name,
preventing a wide range of broken-link issues and allowing more
flexibility on the part of local organizations for their technology
infrastructure management. But that question is totally a matter of
policy, and should not actually affect the design or implementation of
the exchange format to replace MARC.

Thanks,
Steven Huwig

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

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