RE: Back to identifiers

I can imagine a simple solution that accounts for multiple agencies. It
shouldn't be hard for somebody in charge of isbn.org to implement a
redirect service for this URI pattern:

http://isbn.org/isbn/{isbn}

I'm told there is enough structure embedded in the ISBN for a piece of
code to lookup and substitute the agency's URI pattern and redirect the
request to them for handling. For example:

http://isbn.org/isbn/{isbn}
crunch, crunch...
307 (Temporary Redirect) to...
http://bowker.org/isbn/{isbn}

This would allow the agencies (and others) to use the shared isbn.org
URIs inside their data while allowing the agencies to handle the request
for information from their own domain.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura Dawson [mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:08 AM
> To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Monday, 21 January 2013 22:07:03 UTC