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.



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: