Print

Print


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