On 07/17/2014 09:39 AM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
> I think the advice is:
> (1) don't use a URI to identify a bf:Identifier. Treat it as a blank node.
> (2) Only a non-URI identifier (e.g. isbn) should be treated a
> bf:Identifier. (I.e. a URI should not be treated as a bf:Identifer.
> Thus the property bf:uri should be eliminated.)
> I think there is consensus on this, someone correct me if I’m wrong.
In real systems, won't ISBNs be represented as URNs in the namespace
URN:ISBN:... as defined by http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3187.txt ?
Are there really any identifiers that we care that aren't already mapped
to URNs? If yes, isn't the solution to map them to URNs?