Re: Back to identifiers

No, a URI is a URI. The identifier property extension that we have 
talked about is for identifiers that are not URIs. I believe at one 
point we had something like:

Identifier
  - value
  - source/authority

Thus, the URI for the ISBN does not need to be defined using the 
identifier property extension. Yet the example on the identifier page is:

<http://bowker.com/identifiers/isbn/9780553479430>
     a schema:Identifier;
     schema:name "9780553479430";
     schema:inStandard "ISBN";
     schema:issuedBy <http://viaf.org/viaf/142397918>;
     schema:issueDate  "1997";
     schema:identifies <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520>.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but as long as there is a URI for the ISBN 
(and there always is because there is a defined URN for ISBN), then 
there is no need to re-describe it with the identifier extension. This 
description of the identifier I believe is out of scope for our work. 
(And looks a lot like ARK, which possibly had everything right but did 
not get wide-spread traction). I think we should stick to our task of 
finding a way to use identifiers that do not yet have URIs. If, instead, 
you are intending to mint URIs for those identifiers (issuedBy: above) 
then that is another case. This construct appears in the examples but 
not in the text, and I don't think we discussed that here. I think it 
would be over-reaching at this point in time.

But what really baffles me here is that the Bowker ISBN is stated as 
identifying a WorldCat "thing." If anything, that would be reversed 
since the ISBN is assigned to the book before any library data is 
created. I do consider the ISBN to be *the* book identifier in our world 
and that perhaps our examples should look more like publishing examples 
than library catalog examples.

kc



On 1/18/13 9:52 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow. The WorldCat URI is a URI, but it wouldn't make
> sense to say that its rdf:type is xyz:Identifier. Is that the concern?
> That's what I thought Richard was saying for awhile too, but if you look
> at this examples he does keep them separate.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:48 PM
>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>> Subject: Re: Back to identifiers
>>
>> Worldcat URI is a URI. ISBN URI is a URI. Any problem there?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 1/18/13 9:42 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>> Note that a WorldCat.org URI is not a number. The Linked Data 303
>> (See
>>> Other) redirect is important because the 1st URI identifies "the
>> thing"
>>> and the second identifies "a description of the thing" (what Corey
>>> call "a record"). Both can have the same legacy number in them
>> without
>>> causing ambiguity.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:36 PM
>>>> To: Wallis,Richard
>>>> Cc: Corey Harper; public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Back to identifiers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/18/13 8:58 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> For practical reasons, I don't support the notion that an OCLC #
>> or
>>>>>> an LCCN are strictly identifiers for a book.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither do I
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's news to me, because when I suggested this to you, you
>>> came
>>>> back with (and I quoted this before):
>>>>
>>>> "The ISBN is a string of characters (in ISBN scheme that Bowkers
>>>> administer) that they have issued to represent the book - it is not
>>> the
>>>> book.
>>>>
>>>> The WorldCat URI identifies the Book."
>>>>
>>>> And in another post:
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>> URIs are about providing dereferencable identifiers for 'things'.
>>>>
>>>> So when for instance the British Library asserts that the URI for a
>>>> book in the BNB is sameAs in the German National library  they are
>>>> saying the books are the same, not the records they have.
>>>>
>>>> It is the same with WorldCat - it's not just a pile of records it
> is
>>>> [becoming] a graph (to use the current label) of relationships
>>>> between things - people, places, organisations, concepts, and
>>>> bibliographic works.
>>>>
>>>> The URIs represent the things not the records that are being mined
>> to
>>>> build descriptions of those things.
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> You might see why I have been confused.
>>>>
>>>> Here's my take:
>>>>
>>>> Because of how we have done things in the past, we have identifiers
>>> for
>>>> records that describe some level of bibliographic item. De facto,
> we
>>>> have also used those identifiers for the "things" they describe. I
>>>> suspect that this is a common situation for anyone in data
>>>> processing, and I suggest that we not agonize over it but live with
>> the ambiguity.
>>>>
>>>> And in this ambiguous world, ISBNs, LCCNs, BNB #s, OCLC#s, all work
>>>> reasonably well to identify a creative output. They may also at
>> times
>>>> represent the record. That's life.
>>>>
>>>> So, back to identifiers (and I do NOT want this wrapped up in the
>>>> discussion about SKOS because I DO NOT see SKOS:concept as valid
> for
>>> an
>>>> identifier), I think our identifier proposal should be for
>>>> identifiers that are not in URI format. full stop.
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 19:21:41 UTC