-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
> the Authorities proposal, I interpret bf:identifiedBy as having the
> <some thing> <is identified through an authority> <some authority reso
> **But** the identifier proposal says the bf:identifiedBy property is
> for an identifier string. That’s very different. I would recommend we
> able to say the following through different properties:
> <some bf:Resource> <is described by an authority> <some authority reso
> <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).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----