- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:50:17 -0800
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
WorldCat URI is a URI. ISBN URI is a URI. They both are identifiers for a "thing" in this case a book. They also resolve to bibliographic data for the book, not information about the URI. If we can agree on that, we can look again at the identifier example and discuss what to do. 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
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 17:50:44 UTC