Print

Print


+1

To push further, local identifiers could productively have an easy, local
HTTP URI mapping.  That's what a local identifier in Linked Data terms is,
surely.

Rob





On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:37 PM, A. Soroka <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> > 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?
>
>
> +1
>
> ---
> A. Soroka
> The University of Virginia Library
>
> On Jul 17, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
>



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