> Karen Coyle <kco...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> There are two possible values for author: the author ID and the author
> name. It seems to me that both are of interest -- the author ID would
> be another entry point for getting more info, but the author name
> allows immediate use/display of the work data. Would it be useful to
> have both? Or is the author ID enough?

I agree with Jim. In an ideal world I think both is preferable...and
its doable from an rdf perspective. Clients would get a label to
display to a user, without having to resolve another identifier. And
they would also get a nice shiny author identifier to learn more about
the author, and for other people to reference in their data. You can
see this pattern in the lcsh data at id.loc.gov:


See that the concept is connected to its narrower, broader and related
concepts using the URI, but that the rdf also contains minimal
descriptions of these related URIs that include a skos:prefLabel? This
way someone can display the immediate network of concepts without
having to make a bunch of HTTP requests.

But basically whatever is easiest right now to fix the error of displaying:


would be best I guess.

Thanks for asking!
Ol-tech mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to 

Reply via email to