Ideally, though, if we have some buy in and extend this outside our
communities, future identifiers *should* have fewer variations, since
people can find the appropriate URI for the format and use that.

I readily admit that this is wishful thinking, but so be it.  I do
think that modeling it as SKOS/RDF at least would make it attractive
to the Linked Data/Semweb crowd who are likely the sorts of people
that would be interested in seeing URIs, anyway.

I mean, the worst that can happen is that nobody cares, right?


On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Peter Noerr <> wrote:
> I am pleased to disagree to various levels of 'strongly" (if we can agree on 
> a definition for it :-).
> Ross earlier gave a sample of a "crossw3alk' for my MARC problem. What he 
> supplied
> -----snip
> We could have something like:
> <>
>  . <skos:prefLabel> "MARC21 XML" .
>  . <skos:notation> "info:srw/schema/1/marcxml-v1.1" .
>  . <skos:notation> "info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:MARC21" .
>  . <skos:notation> ""; .
>  . <skos:broader> .
>  . <skos:description> "..." .
> Or maybe those skos:notations should be owl:sameAs -- anyway, that's not 
> really the point.  The point is that all of these various identifiers would 
> be valid, but we'd have a real way of knowing what they actually mean.  Maybe 
> this is what you mean by a crosswalk.
> ------end
> Is exactly what I meant by a "crosswalk". Basically a translating dictionary 
> which allows any entity (system or person) to relate the various identifiers.
> I would love to see a single unified set of identifiers, my life as a 
> wrangled of record semantics would be soooo much easier. But I don't see it 
> happening.
> That does not mean we should not try. Even a unification in our space (and 
> "if not in the library/information space, then where?" as Mike said) reduces 
> the larger problem. However I don't believe it is a scalable solution (which 
> may not matter if all of a group of users agree, they why not leave them to 
> it) as, at any time one group/organisation/person/system could introduce a 
> new scheme, and a world view which relies on unified semantics would no 
> longer be viable.
> Which means until global unification on an object (better a (large) set of 
> objects) is achieved it will be necessary to have the translating dictionary 
> and systems which know how to use it. Unification reduces Ray's list of 15 
> alternative uris to 14 or 13 or whatever. As long as that number is >1 
> translation will be necessary. (I will leave aside discussions of massive 
> record bloat, continual system re-writes, the politics of whose view 
> prevails, the unhelpfulness of compromises for joint solutions, and so on.)
> Peter
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [] On Behalf Of
>> Mike Taylor
>> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 02:36
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule
>> Them All
>> Jonathan Rochkind writes:
>>  > Crosswalk is exactly the wrong answer for this. Two very small
>>  > overlapping communities of most library developers can surely agree
>>  > on using the same identifiers, and then we make things easier for
>>  > US.  We don't need to solve the entire universe of problems. Solve
>>  > the simple problem in front of you in the simplest way that could
>>  > possibly work and still leave room for future expansion and
>>  > improvement. From that, we learn how to solve the big problems,
>>  > when we're ready. Overreach and try to solve the huge problem
>>  > including every possible use case, many of which don't apply to you
>>  > but SOMEDAY MIGHT... and you end up with the kind of
>>  > over-abstracted over-engineered
>>  > too-complicated-to-actually-catch-on solutions that... we in the
>>  > library community normally end up with.
>> I strongly, STRONGLY agree with this.  It's exactly what I was about
>> to write myself, in response to Peter's message, until I saw that
>> Jonathan had saved me the trouble :-)  Let's solve the problem that's
>> in front of us right now: bring SRU into harmony with OpenURL in this
>> respect, and the very act of doing so will lend extra legitimacy to
>> the agreed-on identifiers, which will then be more strongly positioned
>> as The Right Identifiers for other initiatives to use.
>>  _/|_  ___________________________________________________________________
>> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <>
>> )_v__/\  "You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in
>>        the original Klingon." -- Klingon Programming Mantra

Reply via email to