we would define some reference systems in the ontology, but any other project could also define theirs, so that we don't have to add new properties all the time. There are a lot of catalogs with identifiers out there (all the Dunhuang catalogs, many canonical catalogs in other languages, etc.), and adding them all would probably clutter the core ontology and make it less future-proof.
Discussing possible adjustments in the ontology for CBC@, I think it would be easier to change the
bdo:workRefXXX
pattern a little. Instead of having:we could have instead:
we would define some reference systems in the ontology, but any other project could also define theirs, so that we don't have to add new properties all the time. There are a lot of catalogs with identifiers out there (all the Dunhuang catalogs, many canonical catalogs in other languages, etc.), and adding them all would probably clutter the core ontology and make it less future-proof.