On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Simeon Warner <[log in to unmask]>

> Having caught up on this very illuminating thread, I think Ray was onto
> something when he clearly separated the URI and non-URI cases:
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 5:39 PM, "Denenberg, Ray" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I think the advice is:
>> (1) don't use a URI to identify a bf:Identifier.  Treat it as a blank
>> node.
>> (2) Only a non-URI identifier (e.g. isbn) should be treated a
>> bf:Identifier.
> Aside from discussions of how useful or not it is to have non-URI
> identifiers, it seems there is little debate that something like the
> bf:Identifer way of talking about non-URI identifier is fine.

To quote my position from the first email in the thread:

Let me start by saying I completely understand and agree with the existence
> of bf:Identifier.  It is important to be able to capture *non-URI*
> identifiers for resources, especially in such a way as to record
> qualifiers, assigners and schemes/namespaces that they might fit into.


If it's also important to capture assigners for URIs, then you would need
to still use a bf:Identifier with a reified URI...

URI Identifier Use Case 2: "I want to describe the origins, provenance,
> etc. of a URI (in a similar way to other forms of identifier)". This use
> case is not supported by simple owl:sameAs suggestion. The problem is how
> to talk about URIs because in RDF they aren't first class citizens, they
> are simply ways to talk about resources. How can we associate the
> provenance properties that a bf:Identifier has with a URI without
> generating bad semantics? I think that a robust answer must use some kind
> of reification --- the way out of the "the first rule of identifier club is
> that you can't talk about identifiers" conundrum.

... but is that really in scope for BibFrame to try and capture? It's the
_Bibliographic_ Framework, not a framework for describing the provenance of
URIs, surely?

If it is, then use, certainly reification. And the easiest technique is to
put it in a string, as you say:

But now, let's take a step back and look at the current bf spec with
> bf:identifierValue [3]:
> <> a bf:person ;
>   bf:identifier [
>     a bf:Identifier ;
>     bf:identifierAssigner "Simeon" ;
>     bf:identifierValue ""
>   ].
Is fine ... you're asserting something about the provenance of a
URI-as-identifier, not the resource that the URI identifies.  But it seems
like a very deep rabbit hole...

<> a bf:Title ;
  bf:value "Lord of the Rings" ;
  bf:identifier [
    a bf:Identifier ;
    bf:assigner "Rob" ;
    bf:identifierValue ""
 ] .

Really? Really?! :)


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