On 8/2/13 11:20 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
> Personally I have concerns about using ISBN as an identifier - only in use
> for last 50 years, inconsistently applied especially with regard to
> eBooks-audiobooks-etc., and sometimes reused.  Capture in the description
> the ISBN that has been allocated to a book. It is useful information, and
> as you say it will come in handy as a look up parameter for cover art and
> connecting with publishers, but as a canonical identifier no.

I could say the same for the OCLC number. When I was doing merging on 
the U of Calif database, we found that it was common practice for a 
cataloger to find a "similar" record, download it, modify it to meet her 
needs, and leave the OCLC number in the record (as well as the LCCN). In 
part it was because those identifiers weren't front and center in the 
record modification process, but also because there wasn't a good 
replacement (as the search for catalog copy had shown). The ISBN, when 
present, had a chance of being updated if there was a link on ISBN to 
the ordering system. But in any case, all of the identifiers have been 
mis-used in the wild, and that's just something we have to live with. 
Our mantra at UC was that it took at least 3 data elements to reasonably 
identify a resource. No identifier could be trusted.


> ~Richard.
> On 02/08/2013 16:56, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 8/2/13 7:44 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
>>> As to the identifying "resources described in WorldCat", that is exactly
>>> the same pattern used by all similar sources. The British Library BnB
>>> data
>>> for instance. The resource would exist even if the description in BnB
>>> did
>>> not.  This of course provides the opportunity to interlink these
>>> parallel
>>> descriptions across the web.
>> Yes, I agree. The BnB, the LCCN, the DNB identifier, the OCLC number,
>> all allow us to metaphorically talk about the resource, especially when
>> the resource is not online. No one of them, however, is THE number for
>> the linked data community -- and in certain contexts you may prefer one
>> over the other.
>> As to Rurik's question about the use case for the ISBN, I see it, too,
>> as a metaphorical identifier, and one that is very handy for linking to
>> publisher resources, such as cover art. It has many caveats, however,
>> like the fact that it's only be in use for the last 50 years of book
>> publishing, only covers books, and that libraries and publishers may not
>> have the same view of what is the relevant identified unit. But in the
>> absence of any one identifier (and probably little hope for coming to a
>> consensus on what exactly needs to be identified), it serves a purpose.
>> kc
>>> <>
>>>           a bibo:Book ;
>>> 	dct:title "American guerrilla : my war behind Japanese lines" ;
>>> 	owl:sameAs <>;
>>> 	.
>>> <>
>>> 	a schema:Book;
>>> 	schema:name "American guerrilla : my war behind Japanese lines";
>>> 	schema:sameAs <>;
>>> 	.
>>> ~Richard.
>>> On 02/08/2013 15:14, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Jeff, your statement seems to have an internal contradiction. The OCLC
>>>> number identifies only "resources described in WorldCat" but the
>>>> resources are not specific to WorldCat - they would exist even if
>>>> WorldCat did not. So the OCLC number is the resource as it is described
>>>> in WorldCat, and to my mind it means that the OCLC number identifies
>>>> the
>>>> OCLC-specific description.
>>>> That said, I agree with Adrian that we have long used such numbers as
>>>> "metaphors" for the resource described by the metadata. At the same
>>>> time, such numbers ALSO identify the metadata record, and we use them
>>>> with that purpose in the cataloging workflow.
>>>> kc
>>>> On 8/2/13 6:03 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>>>> Note that WorldCat Linked Data URIs identify the bibliographic
>>>>> resource, not the record. For example:
>>>>> <>
>>>>> 	a schema:Book;
>>>>> 	schema:name "The Rand McNally book of favorite pastimes";
>>>>> 	.
>>>>> These are the identifiers that the Linked Data community should be
>>>>> using when referring to resources described in WorldCat.
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Pohl
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 5:26 AM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Modeling Question
>>>>>> We discussed this question 2011 in the culturegraph project, see e.g.
>>>>>> my question at [1] (caution: I didn't fully
>>>>>> understand xsd and custom datatypes at that time). There are only
>>>>>> replies to this question that either suggest using URIs as
>>>>>> identifiers
>>>>>> (like Rob) or using specific properties and nobody advocates using
>>>>>> custom datatypes. Generally, specific properties are a more elegant
>>>>>> approach and it's quite awkward writing a SPARQL query where you take
>>>>>> into account datatypes. Also - as Jeff already said - SPARQL runs
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> problems comparing custom datatypes. (see also [3])
>>>>>> The same question came up again developing the DINI-KIM (KIM =
>>>>>> Competence Centre Interoperable Metadata) working group's
>>>>>> recommendations for publishing bibliographic data about textual
>>>>>> resources as RDF, see [2] (German). The DINI KIM recommendations are
>>>>>> bascially an application profile for publishing bibliographic data in
>>>>>> RDF with the goal to reuse as much existing properties as possible
>>>>>> without creating new ones. These recommendations include both the use
>>>>>> of identifier-specific properties and of custom datatypes (see
>>>>>> below).
>>>>>> Another question in the context of representing identifiers in RDF
>>>>>> is,
>>>>>> that some identifiers are identifying a bibliographic resource like a
>>>>>> book, journal etc. (ISBN, ISSN, DOI etc.) while others are
>>>>>> identifying
>>>>>> a bibliographic record (OCLC number [4], LCCN [5] etc.). See [6] for
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> illustration of the two different kinds of identifiers. So, if you
>>>>>> take
>>>>>> the rigorous distinction between a resource and its description in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Linked Data world into account you might have problems with asserting
>>>>>> something like:
>>>>>>        dc:title "Moby Dick ;
>>>>>>        bf:identifier .
>>>>>> I think this is a pseudo-problem but I thought it might make sense if
>>>>>> Bibframe made this clear once and for all. As it already is common
>>>>>> practice to use record IDs "metaphorically" as IDs for the
>>>>>> bibliographic resource described by the identified record and as one
>>>>>> can assume that this practice can't be changed, we should stick with
>>>>>> this approach. Also, I can't see where it does any harm.
>>>>>> However, as I said we pondered on this again in the DINI KIM working
>>>>>> group in addition to the closely related question how to link to
>>>>>> same/similar resource for which already an HTTP-URI and an RDF
>>>>>> description exists. We came up with the following proposal:
>>>>>> 1. Identifiers that exist in form of a URI (like URN and DOI) won't
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> asserted with dc:identifier or something similar but there will be a
>>>>>> link to the resource using the umbel:isLike property. (Using
>>>>>> owl:sameAs
>>>>>> is always problematic in case you are not totally sure you have two
>>>>>> URIs for the very same resource. False identity assertions might
>>>>>> lead o
>>>>>> incorrect inferencing. (For the problems with the use of owl:sameAs
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> the resources listed at [7].) 2. Well known identifiers like OCLC
>>>>>> number or LCCN will be named using the respective properties from the
>>>>>> Bibliographic Ontology. (As you don't reuse existing properties in
>>>>>> Bibframe that means you would have to create new redundant properties
>>>>>> if you follow this approach.) 3. For identifiers where no property
>>>>>> exists, we recommend using dc:identifier in combination with a custom
>>>>>> datatype. Additionally, for local and regional identifiers (e.g.
>>>>>> German
>>>>>> National Bibliography ID, regional IDs from the different German
>>>>>> Library Networks) we encourage a decentral creation of new properties
>>>>>> by the respective institution that mints the IDs in the first place.
>>>>>> As you can see, we both recommend the use of properties - if they
>>>>>> exist
>>>>>> - and the use of custom datatypes. I tried to avoid the
>>>>>> recommendation
>>>>>> of custom datatypes but wouldn't prevail. Hopefully, LoC won't start
>>>>>> creating new datatypes but new properties, if at all.
>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>> [4] Jeff Young wrote 2011 on W3C's public-lld mailing list: "OCLC
>>>>>> numbers identify bibliographic records, not manifestations". URL:
>>>>>> [5] The LCCN permalinks FAQs read: "LCCN Permalinks are persistent
>>>>>> URLs
>>>>>> for bibliographic records in the Library of Congress Online Catalog
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> authority records in Library of Congress Authorities. These links are
>>>>>> constructed using the record's LCCN (or Library of Congress Control
>>>>>> Number), an identifier assigned by the Library of Congress to
>>>>>> bibliographic and authority records." URL:
>>>>>> [6]
>>>>>> Identifier.png
>>>>>> [7]
>>>>>> Adrian Pohl
>>>>>> - Linked Open Data -
>>>>>> hbz - Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes NRW
>>>>>> Tel: (+49)(0)221 - 400 75 235
>>>>>>>>> On 1.8.2013 at 20:12, "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>> We're thinking about modeling identifiers (and other properties?) in
>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>> ways:
>>>>>>> 1) generic property with a more specific data type:
>>>>>>>                    bf:identifer
>>>>>>> "9780394856308"^^http://example/org/isbn13
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> 2) specific property:
>>>>>>>                                                   bf:isbn13
>>>>>> "9780394856308"
>>>>>>> where 'bf:isbn' is a subproperty of 'bf:identifier'.
>>>>>>> How does the community feel about these two options, and why?
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Nate
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Nate Trail
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Library of Congress
>>>>>>> 202-707-2193
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>> -- 
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet