[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Juha, I agree, although it may depend on the origin of the data. If one is starting with a MARC record, an LCCN may have the form:[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/65026236
<http://example.com/xyz/book1> a bf:Instance ;
bf:identifier <http://example.com/xyz/identifiers/book1/identifier1> .
a bf:IdentifierDescriptor ;
bf:identifierScheme <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/lccn> ;
bf:identifierValue "http://lccn.loc.gov/65026236" ; //or 010 format?bf:uriFormOfIdentifier “http://lccn.loc.gov/65026236”.
Is this how you think these identifiers would be represented?
IMO it would be more logical to have bf:identifierValue "65026236" since that is the LCCN. Actionable version of the identifier (LCCN permalink) belongs to bf:uriFormOfIdentifier (or bf:urlFormOfIdentifier; see below).
|010||__|||a gm 71005662|
<datafield tag="010" ind1=" " ind2=" "> <subfield code="a"> 65026236 </subfield>LC has compressed spaces out of the URIs for these same identifiers. Therefore if you are starting with an LC "Permalink" it may take some effort to reconstruct the original LCCN. But these URI permalinks only exist in LC online products, not in the many millions of MARC records in library catalogs around the globe. I don't know if this matters, just that you may not always have access to both and it isn't clear if it's worth while to go to the effort of including both forms if you have to derive them from what you have.
-- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet