Quoting Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>:


>
> Other identifier systems might "support" identifiers which are declared
> obsolete in a different way and one could rather interpret them as
> divided in "preferred" and "deprecated" ones.
>
> So qualification of identifiers is very specific to the rules governing
> the identifier system in question, and like the identifier itself should
> not be questioned by Bibframe (i.e. must be transported faithfully
> and especially without remodeling), and interpretation of that
> qualification probably must always be left to applications.
>
> Providing alternative properties or a fixed vocabulary for "cases" in BF
> will probabliy only create friction: Different providers will encode
> the same situation in different ways, since mapping of the rules of
> the identifier system to a bibframe identifier typology will very much
> depend on interpretation.
>
> Perhaps one could add bibframe:meta-qualifiers where the provider of
> the data can declare one identifier as being "best" to his knowledge.
> Another processing expectation would be that any unqualified
> identifier should be considered "valid" and "best"...

The use cases that I've seen most commonly have to do with indexing,
matching of records, and linking. In the past I've seen systems that:

1) index all "versions" of the identifier, all mixed together, whether
"good" or "bad" vs. index only the good ones (less recall but more
precision)
2) use only "good" identifiers for record matching, vs. use both
"good" and "bad" identifiers for matching, but with different values
and different conclusions based on: a bad matching a good; a bad
matching a bad; a good matching a good.
3) I haven't yet seen linking, but could imagine a case for linking
some but not all versions of identifiers.

I do see your point about the down side of separating identifier
versions into different properties, yet I still see the trade-off of
the extra step of checking the version for all identifiers --
presuming that versions are uncommon (which they may not be). I'm
wondering what is the experience of folks experimenting BIBFRAME
today. ?

kc

>
> viele Gruesse
> Thomas Berger
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iJwEAQECAAYFAlXv5RkACgkQYhMlmJ6W47MfpgQAu/jng824n3pt8xDckxNmZegS
> aervYzdoAk0Jd6GW3Bo3r1WgiBayD2ZwbH6Q+epnWFCaaC8Hr1qOkDgvfAcyHBy8
> qvHTEOQL2uk/iCmWFsd4jxtLwFYF6RYnxcrLRvX58AENMVSSRuSsVafKd14kNShF
> SUhJawti0F41n7eDbBo=
> =1VF2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----