Nathan:
Let me just try to add a bit to this conversation. There are two
ideas here: identifiers for entities like people (whatever role they
play), organizations, concepts, etc. I think (hope) we're starting to
be in agreement that we need identifiers for that, and that URIs are
probably a good choice. (And yes, in theory there's no requirement
that there be anything at the end of the URI, but for reasons I
discuss below, it's important to us that there be something specific
there).
The second is that what does that kind of machine-readable
identification do for us? We're used to thinking of authority files
as a separate silo and maybe your ILS uses some of the relationships
encoded there to guide users, but probably not. I think what we'd
like to see is the identifier giving an application access to all
that structure: cross-references, definitions, etc. (depending on
what the record contains). We'd like to see the application use that
structure to assist the user in browsing, providing more precision in
search results, making selections from search results, etc. Oh, yeah,
all that should be available to catalogers, too, in ways that they
can maintain the files, apply the identifiers in metadata, etc. ;-)
And what you want to see depends on whether you're a person or a
machine. A machine doesn't want a web page representation, but a
person might. Take a look at the mockup for the RDA Carrier
Vocabulary at
http://sandbox.metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/44.html, and
note that there's RDF or XML Schema available for the vocabulary.
This particular application is built so that it recognizes whether a
browser or another application is looking for the information and it
supplies information based on that knowledge.
Diane
>Jonathan Rochkind said:
>
>"Yes, I like using URIs for _identifiers_ for authorities too. Karen
>Coyle, Diane Hillman and I have been trying to argue/explain that on
>some of the cataloger lists...
>
>Note that a URI does not necessarily need to dereference to a web page!
>Even if it does, that doesn't mean we're "replacing our authorities with
>web pages'."
>
>Jonathan, I would really like to get a handle on all of this stuff much
>better. On which cataloger lists have you, Karen Coyle, and Diane
>Hillman been arguing and explaining this?
>
>Thanks,
>Nathan Rinne
>Media Cataloging Technician
>ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
>11200 93rd Ave. North
>Maple Grove, MN. 55369
>Work phone: 763-391-7183
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
>Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:56 AM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Author Identification/Disambiguation [was:Next
>Gen Catalog and FRBR]
>
>Yes, I like using URIs for _identifiers_ for authorities too. Karen
>Coyle, Diane Hillman and I have been trying to argue/explain that on
>some of the cataloger lists.
>
>Right now we use "Smith, John" as an identifier. A soft transition to
>using URIs for identifiers instead has a lot of advantages.
>
>To me this is an entirely different topic though! Note that a URI does
>not neccessarily need to dereference to a web page! Even if it does,
>that doesn't mean we're "replacing our authorities with web pages".
>
>Jonathan
>
>Casey Bisson wrote:
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> This is nuanced, so hopefully I don't butcher it, but...
>>
>> I really like the idea of using URIs for authorities, rather than
>> "Smith, John."
>>
>> A user might be able to navigate to that URI and see a web page
>> representing a certain, specific author, but to the machine that URI
>> is simply a piece of metadata identifying that author.
>>
>> The URI would open the door to the creation of author records, but
>> that's another can of worms...
>>
>> Don't mistake me though, I'm all for authority control and good
>> metadata.
>>
>> --Casey
>>
>>
>> On May 14, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> >
>>> I said this before, but I'll say it again. I know what you mean,
>>> Thomas,
>>> but please don't say that "authorities should morph into web
>>> pages". An
>>> authority record is _data_ (or metadata, anyway), a web page is a
>>> _particular presentation_. We can not replace authority work
>>> "with web
>>> pages".
>>>
>>> But we CAN and I agree our systems SHOULD be producing interfaces
>like
>>> you talk about. So the question is how we do that, if the authority
>>> data we have now is sufficient to support that interface, what
>>> feasible
>>> changes can or should be made to our authority control pratices to
>>> better support that sort of interface, and other sorts of flexible
>>> interfaces we want to provide. We DO need authority data that will
>>> support that kind of interface. We don't get that by "making web
>>> pages"
>>> though. The web pages are the result of good metadata practices, they
>>> are a product.
>>>
>>> We need authority control processes that support multiple flexible
>>> interfaces by NOT assuming any one particular interface. Not a card
>>> catalog, and not one particular kind of web page either. And 'a web
>>> page' is certainly not a substitute for an authority control
>practice!
>>> So I know what you mean, but please stop saying that! It only makes
>>> people who think you DO mean it scared that you are trying to
>>> dismantle
>>> authority control, which seems to be the response anytime anyone
>>> brings
>>> up modernization ideas.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> Casey Bisson
>> __________________________________________
>>
>> Information Architect
>> Plymouth State University
>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>> http://maisonbisson.com/blog/
>> ph: 603-535-2256
>>
>
>--
>Jonathan Rochkind
>Sr. Programmer/Analyst
>The Sheridan Libraries
>Johns Hopkins University
>410.516.8886
>rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Tue May 15 2007 - 11:58:07 EDT