-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 26.08.2015 um 17:44 schrieb Steven Folsom:

> Re: the Identifiers proposal, Karen has said this before, but we
> shouldn’t conflate the role of URIs with string identifiers. When I re
ad
> the Authorities proposal, I interpret bf:identifiedBy as having the
> semantics:
> 
> <some thing> <is identified through an authority> <some authority reso
urce> .
> 
> **But** the identifier proposal says the bf:identifiedBy property is
> for an identifier string. That’s very different. I would recommend we 
be
> able to say the following through different properties:
> 
> <some bf:Resource> <is described by an authority> <some authority reso
urce> .
> <some authority resource> <is identified by an identifier> <some strin
g identifier> .

More and more I have the impression that a distinction between
authorities (I have to admit that I don't fully understand the
concept, there seems to be a cultural gap) and identifiers does
not make much sense.

If we just had a class bf:Identification (paralleling your previous
reasoning to turn bf:Contributor in bf:Contribution) then we
can interpret any authority control document as belonging to
that class. Combine that with the observeation that most authority
<s>control documents</s> records indeed contain a mention of their
string identifier as well as strings for authorized headings and
also express the RWO they describe as an URI we're probably done
(bf:Identification instances could fill the blanks, i.e.
noting the scheme the object belongs to: It seems that not all
RDF representations of authority records make this explicit).

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlXd8K0ACgkQYhMlmJ6W47NDxwP9E5Fmez74iehfuqcicYPXXa8b
VQT1sbp/0EG7ANS2eCkOq17mLofOMCmqCp919f5r2sIYEJxUG6Lsj02SeemubXTz
eGv9MeEUmvF8wAXBP/t3tPYwZWd8246NHumhtENLv77/uWWE96ux2JZO8WLrNtKO
KKHx5ICF95eJNZVQWL4=
=juBf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----