Are you arguing in what I quote below:
1) That it is dangerous or "crazy" for me to publish assertions using VIAF URIs as their subject, period?
2) That it is better for me to mint URIs of my own because it helps us manage provenance, or helps me maintain my data over the long term, or for some other reason(s)? (While I also maintain authority/co-reference information that will be required by anyone who wants to interpret my assertions, e.g. "ex:abcd bf:hasAuthority viaf:abcd .")
Or something else entirely that I'm not getting?
The University of Virginia Library
On Jul 10, 2014, at 12:25 PM, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> For example, with a bf:Authority approach, one could do this:
> ex:1234 bf:creator ex:abcd
> ex:abcd rdf:type bf:Person
> ex:abcd bf:note "This person came here once in 1965. It was cool."
> ex:abcd bf:hasAuthority viaf:abcd
> If a VIAF URI were used, this might happen:
> ex:1234 bf:creator viaf:abcd
> viaf:abcd bf:note "This person came here once in 1965. It was cool."
> Are there mechanisms we could put in place to hopefully inhibit this? Probably, but crazy data finds its way everywhere and it's probably impossible to stop this from happening.