[Web4lib] Authors name standardization. Your opinion?

[Mike Taylor]

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
resolver's data).

 > 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