Print

Print


In response to some of the questions raised so far ….

Rob Said:
To clarify, this is *in addition to* the ability to just owl:sameAs the URI identifier directly with the resource?  And the use case is that there's *other* information that is desirable to express about the provenance of the identifier, such as the organization that minted it?
If so, it would be good to show those properties as well.

Yes.  And I will include these in subsequent examples.


Karen said:
Can we assume that this solution is being offered for all of the identifiers in the id.loc.gov vocabulary?

Yes. However my example is not intended to restrict this to id.loc.gov.  Any identifier scheme vocabulary can be used.

On your example, with the lccn, I think that the info: form for lccn should be used:  I propose that if a scheme can be represented by an info: or urn: URI then that should be used. (We have established, in earlier discussion, that there are no identifier schemes  registered  in both.)    For lccn, which can be represented both via info: and http:, I think info: should be used.

(I do see that Juha has raised issues surrounding this, but I have not yet gotten through that discussion.)


Karen,  in your example:

a                                                                              bf:IdentifierDescriptor ;
                bf:identifierScheme                                       <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/lccn<http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/isbn>> ;
                bf:identifierValue                                            "http://lccn.loc.gov/65026236" ;


The third line should instead be:
              bf:identifierValue                                            "65026236<http://lccn.loc.gov/65026236>" ;




Thomas Berger said:
“…except that (1) and (3) must allow for multiple values,”  (string identifier and URI form)

Seems to me this is asking for trouble (matching the string with the URI). Why not instead provide multiple bf:IdentifierDescriptor resources (and declare them equivalent)?



A.      Soroka asked:
Is there an intention to provide a class for the range of this predicate? (bf:identifierScheme)

It’s a good question, and merits further study.  If we do, then we would have to restrict it to a specific vocabulary, wouldn’t we?



Thanks.

Ray