On 03/07/2013 18:08, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
I was thinking of these standards in the sense of (potentially) having one FRBR manifestation URI that could support content-negotiation (genericResources-53) to one of many FRBR Item URIs. Such a mechanism could even negotiation to FRBR Item URIs are distributed around the world behind authentication/authorization mechanisms (OpenURL).
While I agree that this would be useful, mixing this with the traditional idea of “Manifestation” may be very confusing, since what we are talking about here are not differences in the manifestation itself, but in legal access to a single file. 1 manifestation still equals 1 item and so therefore, it is only natural to ask: what is the use of the manifestation? It becomes a part with no use, and it can only confuse matters.
To repeat, it seems to me to be similar to manuscripts, where there are no manifestations–only items. You can have manifestations only when you have duplicates, and this is not the case with manuscripts and, I submit, also with 95%+ of digital resources.
While content negotiation is important, it is a different matter and seems to be handled much more easily by IP address or other methods than considering it a matter of bibliographic metadata.