Andy Powell wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Phil Barker wrote:
>>The URI itself gives the identification scheme as being ISBN, so it is not
>>necessary to provide that information in the identifier.catalogue element
>>(I guess if everyone used/understood URIs this element would become
>>redundant). Thus
>>
>><identifier>
>> <catalogue>ISBN</catalogue>
>> <entry>0782140335</entry>
>></identifier>
>>
>>and
>><identifier>
>> <catalogue>URI</catalogue>
>> <entry>ISBN:0782140335</entry>
>></identifier>
>>
>>Are equivalent,
>
>
> To nit-pick a little, I would say that they are 'functionally equivalent'.
>
I don't mind nit-picking it's a form of social bonding in most primate
groups :-)
>
>>and I'm not sure that there is any reason why both
>>shouldn't be given in a LOM record (and you could throw in
>>URN:ISBN:0782140335 for good measure as another URI).
>
>
> You presumably *could* do this - but given the duplication of information,
> it doesn't feel like a particularly sensible thing to encourage! :-)
>
Well, if you don't know the functionality of the system receiving the
record doesn't including both give a better chance of an identifier getting
through? Systems which understand URIs would get the URN:ISBN:0782140335,
systems which prefer ISBNs could use the raw ISBN without any having to
know about URN URIs. Doesn't that outweigh the disadvantage of a few extra
characters in the record as exported?
Phil
--
Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
|