- From: Corey Harper <corey.harper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:42:26 -0500
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Karen, et al., How is a URI not an identifier? That's what the "I" stands for, right? Am I missing something here? Why would we want two different design patterns for actionable http identifiers & text-strings as identifiers? The kinds of additional metadata one might associate with an identifier (who maintains it, when it was issued, &c) seem to apply irrespective of whether the identifier is a URI or a string of text, no? I agree that the URI for the ISBN does not *need* to be defined. But should that prevent an agency that manages library identifiers from defining it? I'm not sure I agree that this is out of scope, as this is exactly the kind of metadata libraries & related organizations provide. Now, it's out of scope for a discussion of schema.org metadata about the books themselves; that I agree with. And I also agree that it's weird that the example claims that the ISBN "identifies" some OCLC metadata. That seems wrong to me. If anything, both identifier point, though indirectly, to a book. Thanks, Corey On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > 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 19:42:54 UTC