Rolf Krahl
Rolf Krahl
But our identifiers do not pertain to digital objects, they pertain to instruments, e.g. physical objects.
Sorry, @huberrob, I really tried hard, but I don't get your point. Again: the instrument PID that we are discussing here does not identify any kind of digital object or...
We discussed this in today's meeting: - we agreed that the PIDINST identifies the instrument, e.g. the physical object, not a digital representation. - assuming that the suggestion to amend...
I'll reopen as requested by @huberrob. I will comment, maybe next week.
I believe we have a consensus by now that the inventory number should be included as `AlternateIdentifier`. I suggest to close this one. Note that #24 is still open.
@huberrob, I still believe that your distinction between the "physical object" and some "digital representation" of it (whatever that is supposed to mean) is artificial, it make things needlessly complicated...
Regarding the information to locate the instrument, we discussed that in #17 and finally agreed not to add any additional information such as geo coordinates. For most instruments, the street...
We already do have a place in the schema to include serial numbers and inventory numbers: `AlternateIdentifier`.
In the preparation of submitting the schema as a RDA recommendation, we plan to get a decision on all pending open questions during the next monthly meeting on 4th August....
Why would anybody want to create a PID for an instrument that does not exist? I would assume that any PIDINST is associated with a really existing physical instrument or...