 |
 |
What would be the benefit of representing an isbn as a urn if it doesn't resolve? Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stuart Yeates > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:34 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers > > On 07/17/2014 09:39 AM, Denenberg, Ray 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. (I.e. a URI should not be treated as a bf:Identifer. > > Thus the property bf:uri should be eliminated.) > > > > I think there is consensus on this, someone correct me if I’m wrong. > > In real systems, won't ISBNs be represented as URNs in the namespace > URN:ISBN:... as defined by http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3187.txt ? > > Are there really any identifiers that we care that aren't already mapped to > URNs? If yes, isn't the solution to map them to URNs? > > cheers > stuart