06.12.2010 18:32, Jonathan Leybovich:
While "sh85090739" does not constitute a URI, something like
"lc:sh85090739" would. In fact, the "info:lc" prefix has already been
assigned to the Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/standards/uri/LcInfoURI.html
I would thus support Bernhard's suggestion to use a more compact form.
The URI/URL "http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85090739"; (or what if it
were "http://id.loc.gov:9876/authorities/sh85090739"; ? ) has too much
unnecessary system-level information that, while necessary for the
mechanics of retrieval, has nothing to do with creating a unique
identifier.
'xactly. Furthermore, it would be in the logic of MARC if we had the
number in $a and a source code in $2. And the presentation/access
/linking logic outside the format and the data. For all we know, after
merely 10 years or less something like http://www.loc.gov/authorities
may well look dusty, if not ridiculous. That wouldn't matter, Jonathan,
ok, we know that, it is formally ok, it's not about what it looks like
but how unique it is as an identifier, and let machines care about
re-redirects. But then again, appearances do matter, and elegance.
B.E.
