 |
 |
We went through this in the schema.org Bibliographic Extension working group.[1][2] Unfortunately, many of the key identifiers in our field do not have an http URI form. There are a couple of dozen identifiers in MARC that don't have a URI, not to mention the huge list of organization codes, etc. We finally decided that finding a standard way to encode non-URI identifiers was just too much, and we moved on to other things. One option, of course, is for LC to define a "MARC-based" identifier and use that, knowing that the agency may eventually create a URI in its appropriate domain. kc [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier [2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier-2 On 8/1/13 11:17 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > I guess that actually using RDF is out of the question and having a > URI for identifiers? > > See: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3187.txt > > Rob > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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 > > ------------------------------------------- > > LS/TECH/NDMSO > > Library of Congress > > 202-707-2193 > > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet