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 

>  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.


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