> I consider bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/195531823> as sort of an "opaque token"
> with URI (or rather IRI) semantics when it comes to comparisons.
That particular form of a VIAF URI is supported only for historical purposes and should not be perpetuated. Its unique form does not add any significance to its semantics. (It was the first form of URI we constructed and we quickly realized it was heading us in a bad direction. We abandoned it, but still accept it. The fact that it is getting mentioned here makes me think we should find a method to at least deprecate it.)