Print

Print


Thanks, Mark, for the translation.

On 7/11/14, 11:16 AM, Mark K. Ehlert wrote:
> The abandoned "info" URI effort leaves me skeptical that non-HTTP URIs 
> can be systematically described in general. I'm also skeptical that 
> individual identifiers of any kind need to be described inline with 
> instance data.

Two thoughts:
1) what is the use case for describing these identifiers with more 
detail than we give them in MARC today?
2) if they do require additional description, there is clearly some 
information that is the same for all identifiers of that class (e.g. GPO 
numbers -> created by GPO; have a certain format; etc.). This would 
argue for treating those identifier types as classes, and putting 
instances of the class in the bibliographic data.

OK, three thoughts:
3) as for needing date of creation, that's not particular to this data type.

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet