Print

Print


Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
>
> I'm a little skeptical about the direction of these URI efforts in
> terms of implementation details.
>
> A URI like <http://ifla/namespaces/frbr/Relationships/1001> isn't even
> valid (though I'm sure that will get resolved).

Yes, that's just a temporary URI, and the FRBR stuff is in the 'sandbox' 
not the production registry. So consider it all 'sand' at this point in 
time.

>  And using numbers for
> the critical part is just bizarre by any modern web standard (yes, I
> know it's common practice for libraries, but that's in part my point),
> when it's trivial to serve up localized metadata for these URIs.
>   

Note that when the RDA elements were added to the metadata registry, 
terms were used rather than numbers. That has already caused problems 
because RDA was only half-baked when the terms were added, and many have 
changed names. *That's* the advantage of numbers. But humans prefer 
terms, and the production registry can use either. The Open Library has 
taken a different approach, and adds the human_readable term on at the 
end of the URL, after the opaque identifier. I rather like that approach 
-- kind of the best of both worlds.

kc


-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------