On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:41 PM, Martynas Jusevicius wrote:
> I think you might want
So do you propose to create a datatype for each kind of identifier there is (DOI, ISBN etc.)?
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 16.24, Simeon Warner
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with Lars on both counts. An unquoted URI in RDF does not stand
> for the identifier, it stands for the resource. Thus, ugly as it is,
> there is no option except using a literal. One might paraphrase:
> "The first rule of identifier club is that there is no way to talk about
> On 2/19/19 5:32 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:49 AM, Adrian Pohl wrote:
> >> On 19.02.19 04:03, Dan Scott wrote:
> >>> In a linked data context, I think that forcing a URI to be
> >>> represented as a literal (with a blank node as a bonus), instead of as
> >>> the URI it is, is an anti-pattern.
> >> I agree, but as I pointed out in the last email I also think that it is
> >> bad practice to use an URI when you are talking _about_ the URI (like it
> >> is bad practice to not add quotations when you are talking about a word
> >> in a written sentence).
> > I tend to agree with Adrian here: We're talking about the identifier as a sequence
> of characters.
> >> But there is a third option, we should definitely consider: In my
> >> opinion the best approach is to only use non-URI identifiers in a
> >> bf:identifiedBy statement so that the question does not come up. In the
> >> case that you have different URIs denoting the same resource it probably
> >> is best practice to use schema:sameAs or something similar to state that
> >> those URIs refer to the same thing.
> > Here I tend to disagree with Adrian: We should not limit ourselves to non-URI
> > I'm also not quite happy with the use of schema:URL (what if we use IRIs?). My
> preferred pattern would be to use dct:type to say what kind of identifier it is and
> have a set of skos:Concepts to represent the identifier types. (I know, the definition
> of dct:type says that the rdfs:range is rdfs:Class, but I _think_ that the DCMI
> Usage Board currently is working on relaxing that to
> > dct:type a rdf:Property ;
> > schema:rangeIncludes rdfs:Class .
> > ) .
> > That way we'd get:
> > @prefix bf: <http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe/> .
> > @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns> .
> > @prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
> > @prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core> .
> > <http://example.org/2335409#Work> a bf:Text, bf:Work ;
> > bf:identifiedBy [ a bf:Identifier ;
> > dct:type bf:URI ;
> > rdf:value "http://worldcat.org/entity/work/id/638612"
> > ] .
> > bf:URI a skos:Concept .
> >  https://github.com/dcmi/usage/blob/master/minutes/2018/2018-11-
> > Best,
> > Lars