search

lcnetdev / bibframe-ontology

Repository for versions of BIBFRAME ontology.
http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/
50 stars 7 forks source link

Identifier types as a vocabulary instead of subclasses #123

Closed frosterus closed 2 months ago

frosterus commented 5 months ago

Would it make sense to change how the different identifier types are handled in BIBFRAME? This is related to issue #120 .

It seems cumbersome to include the various identifier types as dedicated Classes in the BIBFRAME datamodel. We at NLF have a need for a few new identifiers as well, but it seems it might make more sense to model identifiers similar to how, e.g., note types are handled using a separate vocabulary (https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/mnotetype.html). This solution would not put stress on the data model when new identifier types are inevitably needed. The LC Standard Identifier list could work for this as is (https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers.html).

jarmosaarikko commented 2 months ago

The BIBFRAME model has an editorial note for bf:Identifier Editorial Note: Any entry from the Standard Identifiers vocabulary at ID may be used; all have been defined as a bf:Identifier See also #44

I suspect any other controlled list of identifiers would be ok, too, if the identifiers are declared of this type without the need to add any more subclasses to the Bibframe model?

However, contrary to the Editorial note quoted above, I noticed that on the LC list. there is only one type (skos:Concept) defined for the identifiers. e.g. https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/wikidata.skos.nt
<http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/wikidata> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept> . or https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/isbn.skos.json

"@id": "http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/isbn",
"@type": [
"http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept"
],
kefo commented 2 months ago

Thanks for updating this issue. @frosterus's issue slipped through the cracks.

The entities in the Identifiers list at ID should be typed as bf:Identifier. We do this for others. In any event, that was the intent and it looks like we just got side tracked. (I can see email chatter in my inbox from July about this very issue!)

The idea was very much to stop adding these to the main vocabulary when possible (but the Identifier list is not comprehensive).

jodiw01 commented 2 months ago

The list of Standard Identifiers (https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers.html) now includes bf:Identifier. image