RE: Back to identifiers

Bingo!

You're right about the 301. It's a known bug and a problem report has been filed. It causes problems for some Linked Data tools like ARC2.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corey Harper [mailto:corey.harper@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 6:05 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: kcoyle@kcoyle.net; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Back to identifiers
> 
> 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>
> 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 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
> >> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); 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 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>
> 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 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > 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 23:25:54 UTC