[Web4lib] Authors name standardization. Your opinion?
mike at indexdata.com
Tue Nov 14 11:49:58 EST 2006
Karen Coyle writes:
> Jakob Voss wrote:
> > No. And you cannot get a full list of all LCCN records. And the
> > info-URI pointless because there is no service that understands
> > "info:lccn/n50035042". So it's totally useless and damages the
> > reputation of the whole URI/info-URI system. There should be a
> > policy that you only get a namespace if you provide your
> > identifiers to the public.
> I assume that what you mean by "provide your identifiers to the
> public" is that you provide a resolution service. In the case of
> the LCCN it is trivial to translate "info:lccn/n50035042" into an
> OpenURL. That is actually more valuable than a single resolution
> service because the end-user's context can be taken into account,
> and the resolution can take place in a local catalog, a global
> catalog (WorldCat) or the original source, the LC catalog.
Oh. That seems like a _bad_ thing to me in the case of author
identities. I wonder whether you could suggest a couple of scenarios
that illustrate the kind of functionality that you imagine this extra
flexibility provides? (Since flexibility =~ uncertainty, I'd like to
see some strong benefits to local resolution before giving up on the
goal of a single global resolution system (or, equivalently, a
globally available file in a well-defined format that contains all the
> A "2.0" solution is best.
Yes; because "2.0" is so meaningless that, whatever you do, you can
claim it's 2.0 :-)
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Diagnosing: it is OK." -- wonderful diagnostic from _something_
in my AUTOEXEC.BAT
More information about the Web4lib