Print

Print


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] The German National Library's response

> Does anyone know an answer to any of these questions? Therefore, I
> think, no URI is better than no URI at all. Use brief and simple and
> easily memorized codes for vocabularies like the terms in 337-338, and
> use IDnumbers for names and subjects and titles.
> Any implementation can easily relate them to all sorts of URIs that
may
> be in current use or follow best practice or resolve to something
> useful for the purpose at hand. Verbal terms need changes and are
> language-bound, URLs are perishable, only codes and numbers are
robust,
> easy to handle, and versatile.
> 

I don't think these two things are in conflict. No person should need to
enter a URI instead of typing or selecting "audio" or the equivalent in
their vocabulary to do their cataloging.

Effectively a URI is just another code or number, with the advantage
that the format and handling of the code has already been specified and
is in wide use. It should be noted that technically a URI is not
necessarily a URL.

URLs are perishable, but only in the same way as any other system of
codes and numbers is perishable. Breaking links in an agency's system
should be avoided. It would be as if the maintainers of the DDC were to
suddenly decide that the 400-499 range should now be about history
instead of languages.

The advantage of using URLs as identifiers is that they provide a
ready-made way for software to dereference them. Using another system of
codes and numbers will require special work on the part of implementers
-- and if it is intended to be both extensible and discoverable by the
world at large, it will have all of the downsides of a URL-based system
and none of the upsides.

One question is whether or not to have the identifiers in general all be
part of the same domain, reaching their actual resources through a
system of redirection (i.e. PURLs). This will decouple the management of
the identifiers from the management of the Internet host's domain name,
preventing a wide range of broken-link issues and allowing more
flexibility on the part of local organizations for their technology
infrastructure management. But that question is totally a matter of
policy, and should not actually affect the design or implementation of
the exchange format to replace MARC.

Thanks,
Steven Huwig