Re: Back to identifiers

Agreed, and I think that Adrian's suggestion of following the design
pattern used for medical codes makes sense:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Jan/0092.html

If the owner of the scheme is interested, there can be a separate
"page describing the identifiers". Both of Richard's use cases are
met:
> If you were expecting to include this data in the structure of the page
> about the book, I would agree with you.   If you were on a page describing
> the identifiers allocated by a standards body, who they issued them to, and
> what for, it would be a different issue.

And from the looks of the examples, this works just as well when
neither the identifier nor the scheme have a URI.

-Corey

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 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 18:38:27 UTC