Skip to content

Hanging Together

the OCLC Research blog

  • Home
  • About
Main Menu
Identifiers / Metadata

Use cases for local identifiers

May 5, 2017May 11, 2017 - by Karen Smith-Yoshimura

That was the topic discussed recently by OCLC Research Library Partners metadata managers, initiated by Chew Chiat Naun of Harvard and John Riemer of the University of California, Los Angeles. In the library world we are familiar with highly centralized models for authority control, as exemplified by NACO and national authority files. However, libraries clearly do create and maintain authorities or name identifier schemes locally. We discussed the use cases for maintaining local authority files, the barriers to contributing local authority records to NACO or national authority files, the trade-offs of minting local identifiers and possible alternative approaches.

The local use cases cited included:

  • Registering all researchers on campus;
  • Representing entities underrepresented in national authority files such as authors of electronic dissertations and theses, performers, events and campus buildings;
  • Recording entities represented in other environments such as digital library projects and institutional repositories;
  • Meeting local needs such as local place names and genre terms;
  • Reflecting multilingual needs of the community, such as representing entities in Chinese characters rather than in transliterations, especially important for communities who speak Chinese languages other than Mandarin;
  • Supporting “housekeeping” tasks such as recording archival collection titles and representing local series classification practice on a copy of the national authority record.

Almost half of all the metadata managers reported that they do not create local identifiers at all, and those that do overwhelmingly did so “for strictly local use”. But “locally authorized” entities may be useful to others who have information about those same entities and should be more widely available. Many would be willing to contribute at least some portion of their local entities to their respective national authority files, but cited significant barriers:

  • Authority record creation is too time-consuming and restrictive.
  • The volume of all researchers’ names and the entities represented in special collections and archives is too large.
  • Not enough staff have the expertise required for authority work.
  • The information libraries and archives have for local names is insufficient to meet national authority standards.
  • The institution is not a NACO member and has no means to contribute to a national authority file.

The Authority Toolkit to create and modify authority records developed by Gary Strawn of Northwestern University received high praise for making it very easy for anyone to create and maintain authority records, whether a NACO participant or not.

Minting local identifiers for entities has the potential for future algorithmic matching against national and international identifiers. Some skepticism was expressed about whether the information available would be sufficient to support algorithmic matching that establishes “same as” relationships. Early-career academics are encouraged to obtain an ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) to enable them to aggregate all their scholarly output, including articles and presentations not normally represented in authority files; this requires that they update their ORCID profiles whenever they change institutional affiliations.

We discussed approaches that would encourage sharing the information about entities gathered currently only on the local level:

  • Open up NACO to allow editing of existing authority records so non-NACO contributors could add identifiers to the 024 field of the authority record—e.g., ISNI (International Standard Name Identifier) ORCID and VIAF (Virtual International Authority File) identifiers—and death dates, critical for copyright determination. Authority records for article authors could be enriched by their institutions’ library staff by recording disciplines and institutional affiliations to help disambiguate personal names.
  • Establish links from authority files to the entities represented in EAC-CPF (Encoded Archival Context: Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families) used by archivists.
  • Encourage submission of “provisional” or “preliminary” authority records that others could enrich and establish later.
  • Support batch contributions from local authority files to authority hubs.
  • Move to a “hybrid” approach that combines matching by machine with human review and correction.

Thinking of the semantic web environment, the OCLC Research Library Partners discussion participants would like to move away from establishing unique text strings to creating identifiers. Rather than the time-consuming task of establishing a unique text string for a personal name, other information could be used to distinguish entities such as the titles of their works. This is especially important in our international environment where the personal name text strings could be written in different scripts. We have a huge pool of legacy entities that do not have identifiers established that we will need to deal with some day. If we don’t find a way to handle the identifiers that libraries are currently establishing locally, we are exacerbating the problem. Let’s try to address the need for identifiers through automation and expanding the scope of authority work.

Karen Smith-Yoshimura

Karen Smith-Yoshimura, senior program officer,  topics related to creating and managing metadata with a focus on large research libraries and multilingual requirements. Karen retired from OCLC November 2020.

oclc.org/research/people/smith-yoshimura.html
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Email this to someone
email

Related Posts

OCLC Research mini symposium on Authorities & Identifiers in Barcelona

December 17, 2019December 17, 2019

“Future Proofing” of Cataloging

October 11, 2019October 11, 2019

The coverage of Identity Management work

October 8, 2018September 3, 2020

OCLC Research

Hanging Together is the blog of OCLC Research. Learn more about OCLC Research on our website.

Links

  • Lorcan Dempsey's Weblog
  • Next – OCLC Blog
  • OCLC Research
  • OCLC Research Library Partnership
  • WebJunction

Categories

  • Archives and Special Collections (195)
  • Born-Digital Special Collections (14)
  • Collective Collections (118)
  • Data Science (7)
  • Digital Preservation (69)
  • Digitization (24)
  • Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI) (8)
  • Evolving Scholarly Record (10)
  • Higher Education Future (8)
  • Identifiers (26)
  • Infrastructure and Standards Support (88)
  • Libraries (93)
  • Libraries Archives and Museums (126)
  • Libraries in the Enterprise (2)
  • Library Management (5)
  • Linked Data (33)
  • Measurement and Behaviors (44)
  • Metadata (75)
  • Miscellaneous (176)
  • Modeling new services (112)
  • MOOCs (7)
  • Museums (57)
  • Open Access (14)
  • Renovating Descriptive Practice (114)
  • Research Data Management (20)
  • Research Information Management (35)
  • Research Library Partnership (164)
  • Research support (24)
  • Resource Sharing (8)
  • Searching (38)
  • SHARES (6)
  • Social Interoperability (1)
  • Supporting Scholarship (65)
  • Systemwide Organization (42)
  • User Behavior Studies and Synthesis (6)
  • Visual Resources (17)
  • Web Archiving (14)
  • WebJunction (7)
  • Wikimedia (43)

Share Buttons

Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Email this to someone
email

Email Notifications


 

Recent Comments

  • Gail Thornburg on さようなら (Sayōnara)
  • Ivy Anderson on さようなら (Sayōnara)
  • Günter on さようなら (Sayōnara)
  • Shuwen Cao on さようなら (Sayōnara)
  • Andrew Padilla on Presenting metadata from different sources in discovery layers

Recent Posts

  • Engaging in “Difficult Conversations” on race: lessons learned from an RLP team practice group
  • “The Big Ask”: Securing Recurring Campus Funding for a Research Data Service at the University of Illinois
  • Emerging Roles for Libraries in Bibliometric and Research Impact Analysis: Lessons Learned from the University of Waterloo
  • COVID-19 Research and REALM
  • Frequently asked questions: resource sharing practice in the time of COVID-19, Phase I

Admin.

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
  • [Un]Subscribe to Posts
© 2020 OCLC