3 thoughts on “info-uris and opening up library data

  1. I don’t think it is correct to say that “info-uris are designed to identify persistent namespaces not the resources themselves”. RFC 4452 refers to the use of info URIs to describe “information assets”, and says

    When referencing an information asset by means of its “info” URI, the asset SHALL be considered a “resource” as defined in RFC 3986

    And your examples above refer to info URIs for people, i.e. resources/things other than “persistent namespaces”.

    The examples of info URIs from the LCCN namespace does raise an interesting question. According to http://www.loc.gov/marc/lccn-namespace.html and http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=reg&identifier=info:lccn/

    An LCCN is an identifier assigned by the Library of Congress for a
    metadata record (e.g., bibliographic record, authority record)

    which seems quite unambiguous that an LCCN (and an info URI in the LCCN namespace?) is an identifier for LoC’s metadata record. If that is the case, then I think using that same identifier for the subject of the metadata record (the person etc) contradicts that statement by LoC and introduces ambiguity about what asset/resource is identified. The person who created the LoC authority record describing the Notorious B.I.G.is a different person from the one who created the Notorious B.I.G. (Probably.)

    But I’m really of the school that says anything the info URI scheme provides could be achieved more easily and cheaply – still without writing an RFC to refister my namespace ;-) – using the http URI scheme e.g. as suggested here



Leave a Reply