If there is really an appetite to continue DAIs going forward, the
wikipedia support for identifiers is modula and there's no reason not to
add more identifiers.
On 06/05/2014 11:06 PM, Ben Companjen wrote:
> Of course there are more identifier systems (or domains, if you will).
> Most/many authors in The Netherlands have a Digital Author Identifier
> (DAI), which is the record number in the GGC (Gemeenschappelijk
> Geautomatiseerd Catalogiseersysteem), or Shared Automated Catalogue
> The DAIs are assigned by (university) libraries and in the case of
> university libraries assigning/finding DAIs for their researchers, the DAI
> is usually linked to the employee in the repository. Following
> "EduStandaard" agreements  among all Dutch universities and some
> service providers like my employer DANS and the National Library of the
> Netherlands (KB), we can harvest the IRs and link publications to
> researcher profiles and show them in NARCIS .
> : http://www.narcis.nl
> Setup as a service by a company called Pica, the GGC is now hosted by OCLC
> after Pica merged into OCLC . The authority files for authors together
> are called the NTA ([Dutch Thesaurus Author names]).
> : http://www.oclc.org/nl-NL/ggc.html
> OCLC is also hosting the ISNI database and VIAF (of course). VIAF, as you
> know, was setup as a crosswalk of authority files (including the NTA).
> OCLC are working on crosswalking identifiers, AFAIK.
> Please be aware that ISNI is a /name/ identifier. Pseudonyms and birth
> names for the same person (should) get different ISNIs. And, as said
> before, not only people can get ISNIs. Also, the business models for ORCID
> and ISNI are different.
> As a Linked Data aside, Eric, be aware of what an identifier identifies -
> and then how you make assertions using them.
> For example, ORCID doesn't use the hash or 303 pattern, so if you resolve
> http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9952-7800 you get a webpage, i.e.
> http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9952-7800 identifies a webpage (the same goes
> for DOIs, btw). That is why I say about myself (in Turtle):
> <http://companjen.name/id/BC> dct:identifier
> "http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7023-9047" .
> instead of
> <http://companjen.name/id/BC> owl:sameAs
> <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7023-9047> .
> … for I am not a website.
> Linking me to things I make is done like so (Qualified DC):
> <#thing> dct:creator <http://companjen.name/id/BC> .
> In your example you used the identifiers as names for the creator(s); it
> is as meaningful as saying (in unqualified/simple DC):
> <#thing> dc:creator "Eric Lease Morgan" .
> Hope this helps :)
> Groeten van Ben
> On 05-06-14 00:14, "Stuart Yeates" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Others have made excellent contributions to this thread, which I won't
>> repeat, but I feel it's worth asking the question:
>> Who is systematically cross walking these identifiers?
>> The only party I'm aware of doing this in a large-scale fashion is
>> Wikipedia, via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Authority_control
>> On 06/05/2014 06:34 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
>>> ORDID and ResearcherID and Scopus, oh my!
>>> It is just me, or are there an increasing number of unique identifiers
>>> popping up in Library Land? A person can now be identified with any one
>>> of a number of URIs such as:
>>> * ORCID - http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9952-7800
>>> * ResearcherID - http://www.researcherid.com/rid/F-2062-2014
>>> * Scopus -
>>> * VIAF - http://viaf.org/viaf/26290254
>>> * LC - http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n94036700
>>> * ISNI - http://isni.org/isni/0000000035290715
>>> At least these identifiers are (for the most part) “cool”.
>>> I have a new-to-me hammer, and these identifiers can play a nice role
>>> in linked data. For example:
>>> @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> .
>>> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378831211213201> dc:creator
>>> "http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9952-7800" ,
>>> "http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n94036700" ,
>>> "http://isni.org/isni/0000000035290715" ,
>>> "http://viaf.org/viaf/26290254" .
>>> How have any of y’all used theses sorts of identifiers, and what
>>> problems do you think you will be able to solve by doing so? For
>>> example, I know of a couple of instances where these sort of identifiers
>>> are being put into MARC records.
>>> Eric Morgan