On 4/23/15 7:18 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
> Bf:Title being flattened out may be a mistake; I think it should
> really just a blank node, too. I don’t much like blank nodes, but we
> need to group together the title properties. Is there a use-case for
> having all the bf:Works with the title “[Untitled] Photograph 1991.”
> point to a single resource someplace that returns you that string when
> you(r system) reference it?
Actually, I think that would be a mistake. Even though there are titles
that are the same *string* they name a different thing. That would be
like having a single identifier for everyone named Bill Jones. You would
be identifying the string, not the resource whose title it is. Note that
among published works there are ones with the same title -- but giving
them the same identifier would imply that they are the same publication.
I see no advantage to giving identifiers to titles. I think it makes
sense to leave titles as strings to be read by humans and searched via
keyword. They are text for human consumption. If we want to identify
resources, a title alone won't do.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net