Hi Nate, all,

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Well, we seem to have a list of a handful of the big classification schemes (in the current bibliocentric world), but nothing from China or from some new data format or wherever else; what do we do with their schemes when we express their data in our systems, before they become so generally accepted in BIBFRAME that they get their own? How do we express a local classification scheme?

I agree with the other responses -- they just get their own classes that aren't part of the BibFrame namespace. The only difference between the current model and my proposal is that we leverage the uniqueness of URIs over the ambiguity of literal strings.

Consider:

Harvard publishes:

[ a bf:Classification ; bf:scheme "local" ; bf:value "something" ]

Cornell also publishes:

[ a bf:Classification ; bf:scheme "local" ; bf:value "something else" ]

Instead:

[ a harvard:LocalClassification ; bf:value "something" ]

and

[ a cornell:LocalClassification ; bf:value "something else" ]

Now it's very clear that there's a difference between the two local classification schemes.

And with the list of classification schemes linked to by Kevin, we would be a long way towards using shared, unique identifiers :)

Rob

Rob Sanderson

Technology Collaboration Facilitator

Digital Library Systems and Services

Stanford, CA 94305