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.


[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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



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




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?







Nate Trail



Library of Congress


[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