 |
 |
Bibontology chooses to use properties directly to represent issn, doi, isbn, handles, etc rather than to get into the whole URI vs. URN vs ??? argument we see with doi, handle and other non-URI or non-URN identifiers. http://bibotools.googlecode.com/svn/bibo-ontology/trunk/doc/index.html The difference between the Bibliontology approach and the DCMI approach is that Biblionology avoids expressing rules as "Syntax Encodings". A while back I pushed to make sure that bibo:identifier was equivalent to dc:identifier, I'm unsure why that was never adopted, it would have created a clearer alignment between the two ontologies. http://bibotools.googlecode.com/svn/bibo-ontology/trunk/doc/dataproperties/identifier___431915395.html Cheers, Mark Diggory On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:22 PM, David Bromage <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > UNCLASSIFIED > > Does anybody know if there is an accepted RDF description of DOI, ISBN and > ISSN similar to the way URI is defined in dcterms? > > Regards > David > > > > David Bromage > Policy and Strategic Projects > Government Information Management Branch > > > > National Archives of Australia > PO Box 7425 > Canberra Business Centre ACT 2610 > > > > T (02) 6212 3731 F (02) 6212 3989 M 0418 394 778 > > [log in to unmask] > > www.naa.gov.au > > > > UNCLASSIFIED -- Mark R. Diggory Head of U.S. Operations - @mire http://www.atmire.com - Institutional Repository Solutions http://www.togather.eu - Before getting together, get Tog@ther