Upload
diane-hillmann
View
520
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Topics
Questioning our assumptions about Authority Control
Differences between records and people
NAF ‘Work’ records
Limitations of our current approach
What’s online now?
Other sources of name data?
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 2
Current Approach
Limitations of library authority control:
Focus is on name variants to support unique text
strings
Record ID in NAF, SAF and VIAF are not name IDs
ORCID, ISNI, etc. intended to identify person
Rules don’t support references and ‘outlinks’
Centralized management both a strength & weakness
Doesn’t address needs for more automated solutions
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 4
Name Aggregation
VIAF—an aggregation of authority records
Records gathered are used to create services and
visualizations
Timelines
Associates, works, publishers, etc.
Versioned in a manner different from id.loc.gov, but with
significant limitations
Policy documentation missing
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 5
Usage Questions
If we use URIs for names and subjects, should we
also cache the data behind them?
If we cache, we need to worry about change
management
What kind of support will we expect from external
systems? How do we express those expectations?
What constitutes change in a name ID file?
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 9
ORCID
“ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring that your work is recognized.”
Began as a way to disambiguate scientific researchers, now more broadly used
Encourages linking ORCID with other identifiers
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 11
ISNI
Audience: libraries, publishers, databases and rights
management organizations
Website and API access
Limited online input
Online enrichment data moderated
Users must request ISNI through organizations
charged with maintaining the information
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 13
NAF ISNI ORCID
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 14
*Centrally managed and
distributed
*Expert input only
*Files available, no
persistent deletes
*Centrally managed
*Some ‘improvement’ by
non-experts
*Must be signed in to add
data
*Self-registration and content
management by acct. owner
*Some ‘private’ data not
available via public API
*Member institutions can
integrate access and update
Developed for ...?
Managing fixed name/title strings as ‘works’ made
more sense in the catalog card days
Does it make sense now?
Will RDA supplant this tradition with ‘work’ entity
records?
Some compilations (Bible, historically anonymous
titles) may require a hybrid approach
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 16
Dealing with change
Many flavors of version control!
Fine granularity at transaction level
Dated URIs (may be links to earlier versions)
Last date only (unspecified changes)
Linked access to old versions
Dated release number (and sometime diffs)
Most recent raw file availability
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 17
Alternatives?
We need to find something which is optimized for
automated updating
The model for software versioning and updating is
already used by all of us (even if we’re unaware of it)
‘Semantic versioning’ (semver.org) can be used to
bring similar version control options to semantic
information (elements, vocabularies, etc.)
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 18
3 tier numbering system: major.minor.patch
X.X.X
Major: breaks backwards semantic compatibility
Minor: change in semantics of any property of any
element
Patch: no change in semantics of any element
Semantic Versioning
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 19
Smart Semantics
Smooth interaction between application and vocab
Transparent to users (until major change requires some
user decisions)
Distributed version control (Git, etc.)
Vocabulary managers trusted to comply with (simple)
semantic versioning policies and practices
And encouraged to provide details of semantic
breakage between major versions
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 20
Remaining Questions
How do we make the shift from assuming human one-by-one lookup to the kind of environment we see in the software industry?
Is that lack of capability one of the reasons that the vendors have been holding back?
How much of a problem is it that the ‘new IDs’ (ORCID and ISNI) don’t seem to do semantic versioning? Are they assuming only lookup will maintain their ‘share of the market?’
2/1/15ACIG/MW 2015 22