In a linked data system, everything is optimised for URIs: searching,
querying, indexing, validation, comparison, import, export, etc, etc.
Every atom of data that can be represented as a URI is almost guaranteed
to perform better compared to a string literal holding the same content.
If nothing else, every comparison between string literals has to
consider their respective language codes and choices about case
Of course what we show to the end-user is a completely separate
question, but "URN:ISBN:0-395-36341-1" can be reduced to "0-395-36341-1"
pretty easily during the display process.
On 07/18/2014 08:45 AM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
> 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?