- From: Corey Harper <corey.harper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:38:00 -0500
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
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