What would be the benefit of representing an isbn as a urn if it doesn't resolve?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stuart Yeates
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers
> 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?