I agree also with Adrian about the use of such metaphors and the pragmatic
way forward probably being to continue to do so.  It matches also with
linked data practice [when a URI is accessed] of returning the thing the
URI identifies or [if that is not technically possible] a description of
that thing.

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.

        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 <>;


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.
>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