On 4/23/15 7:18 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
> Bf:Title being flattened out may be a mistake; I think it should 
> really just a blank node, too.  I don’t much like blank nodes, but we 
> need to group together the title properties.  Is there a use-case for  
> having all the bf:Works with the title “[Untitled] Photograph 1991.” 
> point to a single resource someplace that returns you that string when 
> you(r system) reference it?

Actually, I think that would be a mistake. Even though there are titles 
that are the same *string* they name a different thing. That would be 
like having a single identifier for everyone named Bill Jones. You would 
be identifying the string, not the resource whose title it is. Note that 
among published works there are ones with the same title -- but giving 
them the same identifier would imply that they are the same publication. 
They aren't.

I see no advantage to giving identifiers to titles. I think it makes 
sense to leave titles as strings to be read by humans and searched via 
keyword. They are text for human consumption. If we want to identify 
resources, a title alone won't do.


Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600