Sorry for the garbled replies earlier. I'll switch accounts for now.
I agree with Ray, but realize that his suggestion to treat them as literals is a bitter pill and deserves some community thought and discussion.
I don't want to give up hope for eternity, though. It shouldn't be mandated, but it would be great if the agencies responsible for these IDs officially upgraded them to something like <http://<agency-domain>/<legacy-namespace>/<legacy-id> with the appropriate Linked Data behaviors. Many agencies are already doing this and we should encourage it. Furthermore, we should be willing to accommodate these URIs as best we can, regardless of which RDF vocabular(ies) the agency uses to describe the entities.
Conversely, I don't think that we as a community should be shy about coining URIs in our own domains using their id tokens and describing what we know about those entities to the best of our ability. Their things aren't necessarily "sameAs" our things and we shouldn't pretend otherwise, but sometimes we know something about the entity that they don't.
This may sound like a controversial idea, but I think we can and must deal with it.
Having now read (or tried to read) this whole thread (so far) I have a general observations and a couple specific comments.
General observation: at first we (Kevin and I) could not make sense of Rob’s complaint about BIBFRAME Identifiers, and this discussion has certainly cleared it up, at least for me. Thanks Rob (and Kevin).
· I believe it has been clearly demonstrated by this discussion that a URI should not be one of the “identifier schemes” for bf:Identifier.
· I agree with Jeff Young who said (if it really was Jeff – hard to tell)
‘ The abandoned "info" URI effort leaves me skeptical that non-HTTP URIs can be systematically described in general.’
(This is a battle that I fought for years, but I long ago accepted defeat.) And I honestly think we should treat isbn, issn, etc. – even fully formulated URNs – as string identifiers and not try to turn these into actionable URIs.
· I honestly don’t think there’s much more to this than the above two points, but maybe I’m missing something.