Having now read (or tried to read) this whole thread (so far) I have a general observations and a couple specific comments.
General observation: at first we (Kevin and I) could not make sense of Rob’s complaint about BIBFRAME Identifiers, and this discussion has certainly cleared it up, at least for me. Thanks Rob (and Kevin).
· I believe it has been clearly demonstrated by this discussion that a URI should not be one of the “identifier schemes” for bf:Identifier.
· I agree with Jeff Young who said (if it really was Jeff – hard to tell)
‘ The abandoned "info" URI effort leaves me skeptical that non-HTTP URIs can be systematically described in general.’
(This is a battle that I fought for years, but I long ago accepted defeat.) And I honestly think we should treat isbn, issn, etc. – even fully formulated URNs – as string identifiers and not try to turn these into actionable URIs.
· I honestly don’t think there’s much more to this than the above two points, but maybe I’m missing something.