Print

Print


The need to describe identifiers reminds me of this movie snippet:

http://youtu.be/xrAIGLkSMls

> On Jul 24, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Denenberg, Ray" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> “Are you agreeing, then, that the provenance of URIs (of any URI scheme) is out of scope?”
>  
> I don’t know.  
>  
> Are you asking, do we need provenance for  URIs like http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title7    ?
>  
> No.
>  
> Ray
>  
>  
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 5:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers
>  
>  
> Hi Ray,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> One can say that http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title7 is an identifier, and by definition it is, but
> I don't believe it is an identifier in the context of the discussion we are having.  We've been talking about non-URI identifiers, that have a scheme, and can (in some/most/all ?) case be turned into URIs (http or otherwise).
>  
> Are you agreeing, then, that the provenance of URIs (of any URI scheme) is out of scope?
>  
> Rob
>  
>