An actionable URI implies that it will return a human-friendly HTML document and/or a machine-friendly data document. If it’s a linked data URI, then the server can oblige both types of agents using content-negotiation or embedding the
machine data in the HTML (e.g. using Microdata, RDFa, or JSON-LD in a <script> tag).
Even if the URI only returns HTML today, it can be upgraded in the future to serve both types of agents. Many of us took that route to upgrade our legacy datasets and others will follow. If the treatment of these modes is expected to be
represented as different shapes in the data, then the data will have to be reshaped when those URIs are upgraded. That reshaping won’t happen instantaneously across systems, so data consumers will be put in the position of dealing with the inconsistent shapes.
One of the things I liked about using
schema:sameAs in our various datasets is that it accommodated perfect protocol behavior without requiring it.
In a nutshell, it’s the robustness principle: Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.
Can I bring the discussion back to the original question, whether a URI, supplied as the value (rdf:value) of bf:identifiedBy, should be encoded as a literal or an actionable URI.
I believe the question is probably irrelevant, because, I still believe, there is no practical purpose served by doing so.
Let me ask this: if it is to be an actionable URI, what do you expect to get upon dereferencing it?
- Do you expect to get a description of the resource? We’ve established that that’s not an appropriate use of an identifier.
- Do you expect to get a copy of the resource? Not only is that also not an appropriate use of an identifier, but there is an existing bibframe property
to do that.
So what do you expect to get?
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 8:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] When a bf:Identifier is a URI
Humpf. I checked with WebProtoge and you’re right. I wasn’t expecting that because owl:deprecated is an owl:AnnotationProperty rather than an owl:DatatypeProperty.
It would still make sense, though, for ISSN (and others) to add this in their linked data RDF to reconcile old school URI schemes and the current Cool http: scheme:
<urn:ISSN:0044-1570> owl:sameAs <http://issn.org/resource/ISSN/0044-1570>
That way the tools can deal with differences in practice over time. The same can’t be said for treating the URN as a literal or as an rdf:value.
Maybe I’m still missing the point?
Young,Jeff (OR) kirjoitti 4.3.2019 klo 19.43:
> I agree that identifier agencies should migrate old URI schemes to http:
> and deprecate them in their RDF with mappings to the modern form for
> backward compatibility. There’s even a W3C standard for expressing this:
> <oldURI> owl:deprecated true ;
> owl:sameAs <newURI> .
Not sure this expresses what you intend. owl:sameAs means that both its
subject and object are the same thing, the same individual. Thus this
combination of statements implies that <newURI> is also deprecated.
D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist
National Library of Finland
P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4)
00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO
Tel. +358 50 3199529
[log in to unmask]