Basically the same as a URI. The technical difference, I understand, is that a IRI can contain non-ASCII characters, whereas a URI cannot. IRI/URIs can be used to code values rather using identifiers (e.g. like MARC’s fixed fields (eng) rather than strings (“In English”).


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eddie F. Fitzgerald
Sent: 12 November 2015 13:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Categories--Genre/Form

I wonder what an "IRI" might be ...

Best - \E\
Eddie F. Fitzgerald
William D. Boyce Library
501 Mallissee Rd
Pittsburgh, PA 15239
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 7:52 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Every IRI is the equivalent of a MARC fixed field -- that is, a coded,
identified value.


On 11/11/15 10:01 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>> The idea of "Electronic books" as a genre seems weird to me. As a rule of t=
>> humb, shouldn't "genre" should be agnostic to physical/digital distinctions=
>> ?
> having this genre term is the easiest way to find what electronic
> books are in a collection.  Not all ILS or patrons have the expertise
> to search by a fixed field.  Also, will Bibframe have the equivalent
> of MARC fixed fields?
>    __      __  J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
>    {__  |  /    Special Libraries Cataloguing  HTTP://
>    ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

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