Re: Back to identifiers

It isn't, though. It's ISO's. we just administer it in the US and AUS.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 19, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 1/18/13 7:09 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I agree with Kevin's recap and absolutely agree and encourage Bowker
>> to publish (and recollect if necessary) this kind of resource as
>> well. (Inconsistency aside, Schema.org has three different ways to
>> encode ISBNs because they care.) My only quibble is to encourage
>> Bowker to make this particular URI pattern "very clean" by
>> eliminating the /books token from their URI. The reason is, unless
>> I'm mistaken, some ISBNs (and potentially more in the future) don't
>> identify "books".
> 
> I'm not sure what you are referring to as ISBNs that don't identify books. But in any case, they could be intending to do as LC does and interpolate a level for the type of thing being described:
> 
> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2006008786.html
> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/ill.html
> 
> I think it's best to let Bowker decide, since it's their identifier.
> 
> kc
> 
> 
>> 
>> I agree with the rest of Kevin's message, so it's nice to see some
>> convergence!
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>>> Generally, an ISBN will be treated like a string of characters,
>>> like so:
>>> 
>>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema:isbn "9780553479430"
>>> .
>>> 
>>> but there may be cases where you could have something like this:
>>> 
>>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema:isbn
>>> "9780553479430"; schema:identifier _:b123; schema:identifier
>>> _:b456; schema:identifier _:b789;
>>> 
>>> _:b123 a schema:Identifier; schema:issuedBy "Harvard UL";
>>> schema:name "12345678".
>>> 
>>> _:b456 a schema:Identifier; schema:issuedBy "Yale UL"; schema:name
>>> "asdfghj".
>>> 
>>> _:b789 a schema:Identifier; schema:issuedBy "Princeton UL";
>>> schema:name "qwerttyu".
>>> 
>>> Now, whether we want to do propose this as part of a Schema
>>> extension is another matter, but the issue Karen raised is real and
>>> present in the data.  And, if you're an institution like Bowker,
>>> there are two ways you can describe an identifier.
>>> 
>>> As for the whole business about what an ISBN is or isn't or what it
>>> can or cannot do, well...  I can see it both ways.  An ISBN is an
>>> identifier.  It can identify a Book.
>>> 
>>> As for a URI, it's whatever the data says it is.
>>> 
>>> Yours, Kevin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 01/18/2013 06:04 PM, Corey Harper wrote:
>>>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>

Received on Saturday, 19 January 2013 16:08:59 UTC