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