 |
 |
Hi Rob, do I understand it correctly? Instead of <w> a Work ; bf:issn <i> . <i> a Identifier ; rdf:value "1234567890" . we should better think about something like this? <w> a Work ; bf:identifier <i> . <i> a ISSNIdentifier ; rdf:value "1234567890" . I'd prefer the latter, instead of inflating Bibframe with concrete identifier properties like bf:issn, bf:isbn etc. there is just a common bf:identifier property. (Not only for bf identifiers, this construction can be generalized). Jörg On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > <w> a Work ; > bf:issn <i> . > > <i> a Identifier ; > rdf:value "1234567890" . > > If I dereference <i>, I have no idea that the resource is an ISSN. > > Thus we need to include that information associated with the resource. > That leads to identifierScheme ... which is a URI. > So now we have: > > <i> a Identifier ; > scheme <http://.../issn/> ; > value "1234567890" . > > But an ISSN is a *type* of Identifier, and redundant with the class > bf:Identifier. There can be no resource which has a scheme of <issn> which > is not an Issn Identifier. > > Thus we simplify the model to: > > <i> a IssnIdentifier ; > value "1234567890" . > > QED? > >