- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 19:33:26 +0000
- To: "<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: Diane Hillmann <metadata.maven@gmail.com>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
I generally use dcterms:identifier for non-URI identifiers. They are ambiguous in mashups, but that's what Linked Data is here to fix. Jeff Sent from my iPad > On Nov 23, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > Yes, I don't think we should *prevent* any identifiers, but in fact anything that is in URI form can be added. The problem is (oh, and this will sound familiar :-)) which do we add as named properties to the schema? So now that takes us back to the identifier proposals [1] [2] which we dropped because it made our heads spin. > > I'll give you my gut reaction: make a "any ol' identifier" property and let people put into it whatever they want, with the hope that in the future more will have a URI form. Meanwhile, if you want to use a non-URI identifier, ... good luck! > > kc > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier > [2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier-2 > >> On 11/23/13 8:42 AM, Diane Hillmann wrote: >> KC et al.: >> >> I suspect that in this time of turmoil, the 'perfect' identifier is even >> more of a holy grail than it used to be. Given that we're not yet at the >> point where best choices can be made (much less enforced), I'd be >> inclined to add any identifier I could find that seems relevant, and let >> the future sort them out. It's hard to know looking ahead what we'll end >> up doing, but I suspect none of our crystal balls are very useful at the >> moment. >> >> Diane >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >> :-) These are those times when a "neutral point of view" just >> doesn't say it all, does it? >> >> Thanks, Laura, for your perspective. I'm not at the kitten killing >> level yet, but I, too, find e-issn to be an aberration -- it's the >> ISSN-L that makes me want to strangle. >> >> kc >> >> On 11/22/13 3:21 PM, LAURA DAWSON wrote: >> >> The book trade suffers from the occasional reference to eISBN. >> The ISBN agency tries very hard to stamp those out. I once gave >> a presentation for NISO called "Every Time You Say eISBN, a >> Kitten Bleeds." >> >> With that perspective, I hope the eISSN dies a mangled and >> horrible death. >> >> On Nov 22, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >> One of the examples I added includes the E-ISSN. I have >> mixed feelings about this, but I suspect it is quite common >> in metadata. (It seems to me that it should be an ISSN >> attached to an electronic publication, not a different kind >> of ISSN... oh well.) There is also the ISSN-L, which >> fortunately does not seem to be referred to much, so I hope >> we can ignore it. >> >> If you haven't run into ISSN-L, it is the ISSN of the print >> copy, and is presumably used to gather the various formats >> (E, print, whatever) together. The "L" stands for "linking." >> From the ISSN agency page: >> >> ISSN-L 0264-2875 >> Printed version: Dance research = ISSN 0264-2875 >> Online version: Dance research (Online) = ISSN >> 1750-0095 >> >> If you know of a growing use of these, please speak up. I >> haven't run into them, but I'm not watching any serials >> databases carefully. Also, if E-ISSNs are falling out of >> use, then we can skip those. Anyone? >> >> kc >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> >> skype: kcoylenet > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet >
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2013 19:34:00 UTC