Print

Print


There are very few identifiers for which there is only one URI form. For 
example Wikipedia has ISBN URLs such as 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0140206523, Amazon has 
theirs, etc, etc.

Generally speaking, however, these are relatively straight-forward to 
canonicalise to some URI form (ideally we'll all pick the same form). 
This is likely to be done during data cleaning on input, just like a 
hundred little things we already do at that point.

cheers
stuart

On 07/18/2014 09:33 AM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
> Doesn't this assume that for a given identifier type there is only one URI form?  And are we saying further that it all cases these are URNs?    I don't think you can represent an lccn as a URN (at least not according to http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml)  and if you can represent lccn as a URN then there are two ways, because you can (and LC does) represent them as info: URIs.
>
> Ray
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stuart Yeates
>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 5:02 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers
>>
>> In a linked data system, everything is optimised for URIs: searching, querying,
>> indexing, validation, comparison, import, export, etc, etc.
>> Every atom of data that can be represented as a URI is almost guaranteed to
>> perform better compared to a string literal holding the same content.
>> If nothing else, every comparison between string literals has to consider their
>> respective language codes and choices about case sensitivity (etc).
>>
>> Of course what we show to the end-user is a completely separate question,
>> but "URN:ISBN:0-395-36341-1" can be reduced to "0-395-36341-1"
>> pretty easily during the display process.
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>>
>> On 07/18/2014 08:45 AM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
>>> 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