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  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers

From:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:45:11 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (64 lines)

Your citation supports my point. The question of "dereferenceability" only arises in the context of Linked Data.

See the RDF recommendations:

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#h3_referents

"Perhaps the most important characteristic of IRIs in web architecture is that they can be dereferenced, and hence serve as starting points for interactions with a remote server. This specification is not concerned with such interactions. It does not define an interaction model. It only treats IRIs as globally unique identifiers in a graph data model that describes resources. However, those interactions are critical to the concept of Linked Data [LINKED-DATA], which makes use of the RDF data model and serialization formats."

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 17, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 7/17/14, 7:07 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>> URNs are by definition URIs, but in the semantic web context only http URIs are used for subjects and predicates (although, beyond the "use http URIs" statement by TBL, I don't see an absolute restriction in the RDF documentation).
>> You won't find any absolute restriction because there isn't one.
>
> Actually, there is the question of "dereferenceability" -- and that at the moment, on the web, only http uris are dereferenceable [1].
>
> I may have spent too much time on Wikipedia lately, but I think it's a good practice to provide a citation or two to support one's statements. Otherwise, we're just slinging unsupported opinions.
>
> kc
> [1]
>
>>
>> This is a key distinction between RDF (which exists independently of the Web) and "Linked Data" as we usually speak of it (which does not). It's perfectly legitimate to produce RDF using non-HTTP URIs and people have been doing it for many years. It's also perfectly legitimate to publish such RDF on the Web, and people have been doing that, too. But it's not Linked Data in the sense in which TBL used the phrase, or at least, not very good Linked Data. It's when we turn from the graph (RDF) to the distributed graph (Linked Data) that using HTTP URIs becomes so interesting, because HTTP is highly scalable and allows us to distribute the graph very widely and robustly.
>>
>> ---
>> A. Soroka
>> The University of Virginia Library
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/17/14, 3:43 AM, Thomas Berger wrote:
>>>> Sure. But Rob's (absolutely valid) point are the inconsistencies arising
>>>> from resource URIs we want to distinguish as "identifiers" simultaneously
>>>> used as resource URI for the bf:Identifier as such. Making statements about
>>>> some URIs (as URIs as in contrast to the resources they represent) would
>>>> constitute a more subtle form of the same(?) fallacy and is likewise absolutely
>>>> not admissible.
>>>> My point of view however would be to simply dispense n URIs into m bf:Identifier
>>>> containers and keep them striclty in object position there...
>>> Which *you* can do, but you cannot prevent anyone else from using them "in the subject position." Therefore, in the open web, you cannot enforce this consistency.
>>>
>>> I note that all of your examples use URN forms, not http URIs, which are the LOD standard. That could mean that we are not talking about the same thing. URNs are by definition URIs, but in the semantic web context only http URIs are used for subjects and predicates (although, beyond the "use http URIs" statement by TBL, I don't see an absolute restriction in the RDF documentation).
>>>
>>> What I believe you are proposing is the same that I proposed in the schema.org variant [1], which is to have an "identifier" property for those identifiers that CANNOT be used as subjects in RDF statements. If that is the case, then it is essential that no URIs are used as objects of that predicate.
>>>
>>> kc
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier-2
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> 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

October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
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