No subject

"Hyphen is always used for separating the prefix and the NBN string.
Colon is used as the delimiting character if and only if a country
code-based NBN namespace is split further in smaller sub-namespaces.
If there are several national libraries in one country, these
libraries can split their national namespace into smaller parts using
this method."

There are no sub-namespaces in the GB landscape so we should follow the =
pattern below:=20
urn:nbn:{ISO 3166 code}-{NBN string}

GBA267005 is an instance of the British National Bibliography number, =
i.e. the NBN string.
=20
So I think the format should be:
urn:nbn:gb-GBA267005

Cheers

Corine

*********************************
The British Library
Boston Spa, Wetherby
West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ
e-mail: corine.deliot at bl.uk                                              =
                                                                         =
                         =20
*********************************

-----Original Message-----
From: open-bibliography-bounces at lists.okfn.org =
[mailto:open-bibliography-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of William =
Waites
Sent: 2010-12-08 22:08
To: List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data
Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] URNs for National Bib Numbers

* [2010-12-08 16:39:49 -0500] Ross Singer <ross.singer at talis.com> =
=E9crit:

] So, like Ben pointed out, I think the format for the bnb would be
] something like:
]=20
] urn:nbn:gb:bnb-GBA267005
]=20
] although following the model that the Germans seem to use, it would
] look more like:
]=20
] urn:nbn:gb:bnb:GBA267005

In either case, as far as a service like Bibliographica is concerned I
would propose to take a strategy like we already do with authors and
series and suchlike, and continue to have the data in the store as it
is now, but also put

   <http://bnb.bibliographica.org/entry/GBA267005>
       owl:sameAs <urn:nbn:gb:bnb:GBA267005>.

That way statements that we have about this subject can be immediately
found through dereferencing, but we still have something IFP-like that
can be used to join across different datasets with information about
the same thing. Likewise for the BL if they put up
e.g. http://bl.uk/bnb/GBA267005.=20

I favour the German approach FWIW, it looks more pleasant to my eyes,
but it's not a strong preference.

] I definitely agree with you, re: the downside of using URNs.  I wonder
] if it would be worthwhile to set up a purl like:
]=20
] http://purl.org/NET/nbn/gb/bnb/{id}
]=20
] where "gb" could route to some nationally appropriate resolver?

I'm down on purl.org these days because they are being very
conservative about implementing CORS. But definitely something along
these lines could be quite useful.

Cheers,
-w
--=20
William Waites
http://eris.okfn.org/ww/foaf#i
9C7E F636 52F6 1004 E40A  E565 98E3 BBF3 8320 7664

_______________________________________________
open-bibliography mailing list
open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography