Print

Print


Hi Nate, all,

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Well, we seem to have a list of a handful of the big classification
> schemes (in the current bibliocentric world), but nothing from China or
> from some new data format or wherever else; what do we do with their
> schemes when we express their data in our systems, before they become so
> generally accepted in BIBFRAME that they get their own? How do we express a
> local classification scheme?
>

I agree with the other responses -- they just get their own classes that
aren't part of the BibFrame namespace.  The only difference between the
current model and my proposal is that we leverage the uniqueness of URIs
over the ambiguity of literal strings.

Consider:

Harvard publishes:
    [ a bf:Classification ; bf:scheme "local" ; bf:value "something" ]
Cornell also publishes:
    [ a bf:Classification ; bf:scheme "local" ; bf:value "something else" ]

Instead:
    [ a harvard:LocalClassification ; bf:value "something" ]
 and
    [ a cornell:LocalClassification ; bf:value "something else" ]

Now it's very clear that there's a difference between the two local
classification schemes.

And with the list of classification schemes linked to by Kevin, we would be
a long way towards using shared, unique identifiers :)

Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305