 |
 |
John, This is a good question. Of course, this isn't something that I figured could be solved in an afternoon (a Friday, at that!), but I think it warrants investigation. A way to address the situation you mention would be to add a 3rd field (maybe, I could be misunderstanding the problem) so: dbID:variantID:vendorID (or something) with variantID being a unique id to explain away the inconsistencies (:letters, :BCPapers, etc.) I don't really have a good answer in regards to "scope". I think a definition of "database" would be in order. Maybe. -Ross. John Durno wrote: > I'd find something like this really useful for a couple of projects I'm > working on. > > I think the dbID:vendorID format could work quite well, as it preserves > both the fact that the content is the same and that it's located in a > different place. That's assuming that vendor here refers to the host > ... or does it refer to the publisher? Host would be better I think, as > there is generally only one publisher for a given resource, but the > host can often be any one of a number of service providers. (eg. APA > publishes PsycINFO ,which can be hosted by EBSCO, ProQuest, OVID, etc.) > > There are complications arising from the fact that what constitutes a > "database" can be fairly fluid. eg. databases that consist of multiple > possible collections (thinking here of something like ProQuest's > Canadian Newsstand, which can be any or all of a number of regional > newspaper collections), or ebook databases like netLibrary. Not sure > how those kinds of content variations could be reflected in a standard > ID, or even if they should be. > > John > > > On 4-Mar-05, at 6:10 AM, Ross Singer wrote: > >> Thom, >> >> This is good news. Whenever I think about this, I picture it looking >> something like a DOI: like dbID:vendorID or something, but I don't >> know. Do you have any details? >> >> Thanks, >> -Ross. >> >> Hickey,Thom wrote: >> >>> There's been some talk around here at OCLC about doing something about >>> this, especially to identify database-collections, which seem to be >>> entities people worry about too. >>> >>> --Th >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>> Of >>> Ross Singer >>> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:45 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Authority Control for Databases >>> >>> Is anybody aware of any type of standard identifier for databases? Or >>> any movement to create one? >>> >>> Matching on name seems very backwards. >>> >>> If there's not a group trying to create said authority, how could >>> something like that be started? Would anybody else see value in this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Ross. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- > John Durno > Project Coordinator > BC Electronic Library Network > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Phone: 604-268-7002 > Fax: 604-291-3023 > Email: [log in to unmask] > Web: http://www.eln.bc.ca >