Instead of:




you could do:


This could be set up as a partial redirect something like so:*


Then, any time somebody clicked on one of them, the PURL server would redirect them to some place in the BIBFRAME spec that defines the structural aspects and why the individuals aren’t resolvable.




From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denenberg, Ray
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 4:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] expressing an identifiers as a (non http) URI (was:....identifiers)


I've started this thread, a sub-thread of the identifier discussion, to focus on the suggestion that BIBFRAME identifiers  (non-http  identifiers)  be expressed as  URIs (non-http URIs)  


(To be clear:

> From:  Stuart Yeates

> There are very few identifiers for which there is only one URI form. For

> example Wikipedia has ISBN URLs such as

>, Amazon has

> theirs, etc, etc.

Yes, non-http URIs can often be turned into http URIs. I am excluding http in this discussion.)


Actually one person offered the stronger suggestion that the identifiers all be expressed as URNs.


So,three issues:

1.       How to represent an identifier that does not have a URN form, but can be expressed by another (non-http) scheme, e.g. ‘info:’

2.       How to represent an identifier that might have more than one (non-http) URI form. E.g. ‘urn:’ and ‘info:’

3.       How to represent an identifier that has no URI form at all.  


No URN form  but can be expressed by another scheme.

An example is LCCN. It cannot be represented as a URN, but can be represented as an ‘info:’ URI.   I am assuming that the answer here is to represent it as an ‘info:’ URI, I just want to confirm that everyone agrees.  This would apply as well to ark, pmid  and others.


more than one (non http) URI form.

While there are no subspaces common to:

‘info:’ and

‘urn:’ (  

There is quite a body of literature that claims that this or that identifier, in the ‘info’ table, but not in the ‘urn’ table,  is expressible as a URN.  These include sici, doi, and hdl, and perhaps others.  I am assuming that the rule here would be to express these as ‘info:’ URIs, and never as URNs.


No URI form

I am hoping that there is unanimous consensus that an identifier whose scheme is not listed in the URN registry should never be expressed as a URN.   But there are quite a number of these, including Ismn, isrc, istc, iswc, legalDeposit, musicPublisherNumber, publisherNumber, stockNumber, strn, systemNumber, and several more.  Getting these registered as URN subspaces is not a practical idea. (And those of you who have registered URN spaces know what a painful process it is.)    I have a radical suggestion: re-open the info: registry  (Jeff?) and register the single space ‘bibframe:’ and structure it’s definition as we want it. For example:  “info:bibframe\publisherNumber\ 256A090”.


Other suggestions?