Doesn't this assume that for a given identifier type there is only one URI form? And are we saying further that it all cases these are URNs? I don't think you can represent an lccn as a URN (at least not according to http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml) and if you can represent lccn as a URN then there are two ways, because you can (and LC does) represent them as info: URIs.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stuart Yeates
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 5:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers
> 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 sensitivity (etc).
> 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
> > Ray
> >> -----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?
> >> cheers
> >> stuart