Re: Proposal to include ISNI

On 21 November 2013 14:50, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> Yes, you are right - but the URN schemes are, at least in my opinion, kind of a dead branch of the URI space, because they cannot be upgraded to be dereferenceable.

Never say never, some people had URN resolution via their HTTP proxies
back in '98, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june98/06powell.html ... But
you're right, it didn't catch on.

And yes, I like the idea of adding a few more http://schema.org/sameAs
examples for well known ID/authority services. Suggestions welcomed,

Dan

> Martin
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>
>>> The difference to ISBN is that for ISBN codes, there is no canonical URI
>>> schema defined (at least to my knowledge).
>>
>> There is urn:isbn (RFC 3187 [1]) which allows you to mask any ISBN in a URI.
>>
>> [1] http://www.iana.org/go/rfc3187
>>
>> /Lars
>>
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 14:55:23 UTC