I'd find something like this really useful for a couple of projects I'm
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.
On 4-Mar-05, at 6:10 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
> 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?
> 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.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> 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?
BC Electronic Library Network
Email: [log in to unmask]