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  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers

From:

Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:56:51 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Am 17.07.2014 16:00, schrieb Karen Coyle:
> 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).

This was because I was sticking to the ISBN case.

Another example (although in the realm of bf:Authorities) would be VIAF URLs
where the "Peralink" is a canonical URL sanctioned by viaf.org

http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823

Like ISBN URIs it is derived from the identifier as string and, since
VIAF proposes use and display of the URL form to achieve ODC conformance
I'm strongly inclined to regard the URL form as an identifier representation
in its on right, comparable to the difference between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13.

Since VIAF has started to cover (RDA) work and expression records in
principle we can start crafting examples for "classical" Bibframe
resources with VIAF use, at least for bf:works



> 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.

"identifier" has unfortunately turned into a highly ambiguous term in
this discussion. What we are discussing here are "more modern" identifiers
crafted for web situations. In a sense we consider them the better kind
of identifiers but it turns out that we have difficulties to preserve
the aspects of more traditional identifiers they bear. A noteworthy example
should be URN:NBN identifiers for digitized resources: Their purpose is
very classic (providing national bibliographic identification) but no
one even tries to regard them as composites of "identifier proper" with
some silly prefix.

Treating all identifier values as strings (including those which look
like URIs) is one viable option and one can state

This resource might commonly be identified by "http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823"

Allowing URIs as identifier values (in a differently named property) seems
to correspond with the "identifies" property proposed in
< http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier >: At a first
glance I found it silly that a thing has an identifier which in turn
identifies a (i.e. this?) thing. But if insulate the graph for the
identifier and read "identifies" as "is commonly used for" then it is
exactly the property I was reasoning about.

Now consider

<http://example.org/persons/kcoyle> a bf:person;
   bf:identifier [
       bf:schema "VIAF";
       bf:identifierValue "195531823";
       bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>
     ].

This states identity of <http://example.org/persons/kcoyle> with
any resource carrying matching identifieres, e.g.

<http://example.com/p/kc> a bf:person;
   bf:identifier [
       bf:schema "VIAF";
       bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>
     ].

However identity with the resource <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>
is NOT built into that construction, it's rather "all resources
relating the same way with <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>
are pairwise equivalent" and someone would /explicitly/ have to add

<http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823> a bf:person;
   bf:identifier [
       bf:schema "VIAF";
       bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>;
       bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/195531823>;
       bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/viaf/sourceID/LC|n89613425>;
     ].

to the picture to connect a resource in the VIAF domain with its
VIAF identifier and canoncical VIAF URL.

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlPH8kMACgkQYhMlmJ6W47N2ogQApGvTM87HR/TF9XfNoUVnRUmO
Ef4/USiVPDLnhS5dgTAp3hsBAnAZ7BWHlW/EBYk6KTsJlXu+I39lWE8atf86sbki
5nYGQd3XZq5IB/BBxCbOnXLP/sHHiuRXopPeBvM3DA15GgeKaWxu9hG3lFeoKLHJ
57orOoS27Bzylx3nups=
=D3yR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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