‘In other words, what is the valid form of an LCCN ?’
(…talking about the valid form for bf:identifierValue) For an lccn, I’m not sure that the form chosen for bf:indentifierValue matters much.
We seemed to conclude (a week or two ago) that supplying a URI form for the identifier is a good idea -- not because you might be able to dereference it, but because when in URI form it would be normalized and thus easier to process. I can’t say that I understand this to be true for all identifier schemes - isbn for example - but it is true for lccn, when represented as an info: uri; the normalization is explicitly described at http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=reg&identifier=info:lccn/ . So when the lccn identifier is encountered it would be uriForm that’s processed (with the normalized lccn), and not the string bf:identifierValue. Right?