Re: Back to identifiers

I suspect they haven't chosen a format for their http URIs yet . The essential point was this:

http://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/Very_clean_URIs

Jeff 

Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

Regardless, it is up to the agency to format their URI as they desire. 
We don't know why they have chosen the format they have, nor if they 
have other intentions. All we need is something that identifies a thing 
uniquely.

kc

On 1/19/13 8:15 AM, Graham Bell wrote:
> For completeness, some text from the International ISBN Agency
> website... and as you can see, not all of these are 'books'.
>
>> Some examples of the types of publication that qualify for ISBN are:
>> • Printed books and pamphlets
>> • Individual chapters or sections of a publication if these are made
>> available separately
>> • Braille publications
>> • Publications that are not intended by the publisher to be updated
>> regularly or continued indefinitely
>> • Individual articles or issues of a particular continuing resource
>> (but not the continuing resource in its entirety)
>> • Maps
>> • Educational/instructional films, videos and transparencies
>> • Audiobooks on cassette, or CD, or DVD (talking books)
>> • Electronic publications either on physical carriers (such as
>> machine-readable tapes, diskettes, or CD-ROMs) or on the Internet
>> • Digitised copies of print monographic publications
>> • Microform publications
>> • Educational or instructional software
>> • Mixed media publications (where the principal constituent is text-based)
>
> Graham
>
>
>
> Graham Bell
> EDItEUR
>
> Tel: +44 20 7503 6418
> Mob: +44 7887 754958
>
> EDItEUR Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England
> no 2994705. Registered Office: United House, North Road, London N7 9DP,
> UK. Website: http://www.editeur.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 16:08, Laura Dawson wrote:
>
>> It isn't, though. It's ISO's. we just administer it in the US and AUS.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 19, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/18/13 7:09 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Kevin's recap and absolutely agree and encourage Bowker
>>>> to publish (and recollect if necessary) this kind of resource as
>>>> well. (Inconsistency aside, Schema.org <http://Schema.org> has three
>>>> different ways to
>>>> encode ISBNs because they care.) My only quibble is to encourage
>>>> Bowker to make this particular URI pattern "very clean" by
>>>> eliminating the /books token from their URI. The reason is, unless
>>>> I'm mistaken, some ISBNs (and potentially more in the future) don't
>>>> identify "books".
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you are referring to as ISBNs that don't identify
>>> books. But in any case, they could be intending to do as LC does and
>>> interpolate a level for the type of thing being described:
>>>
>>> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2006008786.html
>>> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/ill.html
>>>
>>> I think it's best to let Bowker decide, since it's their identifier.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the rest of Kevin's message, so it's nice to see some
>>>> convergence!
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>> Generally, an ISBN will be treated like a string of characters,
>>>>> like so:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema:isbn "9780553479430"
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> but there may be cases where you could have something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema:isbn
>>>>> "9780553479430"; schema:identifier _:b123; schema:identifier
>>>>> _:b456; schema:identifier _:b789;
>>>>>
>>>>> _:b123 a schema:Identifier; schema:issuedBy "Harvard UL";
>>>>> schema:name "12345678".
>>>>>
>>>>> _:b456 a schema:Identifier; schema:issuedBy "Yale UL"; schema:name
>>>>> "asdfghj".
>>>>>
>>>>> _:b789 a schema:Identifier; schema:issuedBy "Princeton UL";
>>>>> schema:name "qwerttyu".
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, whether we want to do propose this as part of a Schema
>>>>> extension is another matter, but the issue Karen raised is real and
>>>>> present in the data.  And, if you're an institution like Bowker,
>>>>> there are two ways you can describe an identifier.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the whole business about what an ISBN is or isn't or what it
>>>>> can or cannot do, well...  I can see it both ways.  An ISBN is an
>>>>> identifier.  It can identify a Book.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for a URI, it's whatever the data says it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours, Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/18/2013 06:04 PM, Corey Harper wrote:
>>>>>> I see your point, Jeff, and you're definitely correct about your
>>>>>> use of redirects & to-the-letter adherence to all that fun
>>>>>> range-14
>>>>> stuff,
>>>>>> though I'm getting a 301 rather than a 303 (see below)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just a little wary of reusing an identifier that has a
>>>>>> pretty specific legacy meaning as both a thing ID and a metadata
>>>>>> ID, particularly when the primary usage seems to be the former.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that's just a discomfort that I'll get over when/if
>>>>>> the legacy meanings are slowly erased from our collective
>>>>>> memories... :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, -Corey
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *** 301-ing for me... ***
>>>>>>> curl -I http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520 HTTP/1.1 301
>>>>>>> Moved Permanently Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:59:22 GMT Server:
>>>>>>> Apache Location: /title/war-and-peace/oclc/38264520
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This new location 200's w/ or without Accept headers...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Young,Jeff (OR)
>>>>>> <jyoung@oclc.org <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Corey,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're not crazy. A URI is an identifier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no good reason to model identifiers as both URIs and
>>>>>>> non-
>>>>> URI text-strings now-a-days. The latter need to carry too much
>>>>> context to be effective. Nevertheless, they exist in legacy
>>>>> systems. The mechanism that's being proposed creates a bridge from
>>>>> legacy string identifiers to the URI identifiers. Only systems that
>>>>> are coupled with the legacy forms will care about this bridge.
>>>>> Whether Schema.org <http://Schema.org> cares enough about the past
>>>>> to adopt such an
>>>>> identifier bridge is unclear. That's why Richard suggests tabling
>>>>> this discussion in favor of SKOS patterns (which are effectively
>>>>> the same).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason the example is weird is because you're overlooking
>>>>>>> the
>>>>> implications of Cool URIs for the Semantic Web.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The example doesn't identify OCLC metadata, it identifies a
>>>>>>> Book
>>>>> that OCLC has coined a URI for. The metadata entity has a different
>>>>> URI identifier. The 303 redirect from the former to the latter is
>>>>> merely a convenience mechanism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Corey Harper
>>>>>>>> [mailto:corey.harper@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 18,
>>>>>>>> 2013 2:42 PM To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR);
>>>>>>>> public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Back to identifiers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <http://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 <mailto: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 <http://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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://kcoyle.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kcoylenet
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://kcoyle.net ph:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>>>>>>>>> http://kcoyle.net ph:
>>>>>>>>> 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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 Sunday, 20 January 2013 03:48:43 UTC