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 [0] 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 [1].


Setup as a service by a company called Pica, the GGC is now hosted by OCLC
after Pica merged into OCLC [2]. The authority files for authors together
are called the NTA ([Dutch Thesaurus Author names]).


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 you get a webpage, i.e. identifies a webpage (the same goes
for DOIs, btw). That is why I say about myself (in Turtle):

    <> dct:identifier
"" .

instead of 

    <> owl:sameAs
<> .

… for I am not a website.

Linking me to things I make is done like so (Qualified DC):

    <#thing> dct:creator <> .

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
>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 -
>>    * ResearcherID -
>>    * Scopus - 
>>    * VIAF -
>>    * LC -
>>    * ISNI -
>> 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: <> .
>>    <> dc:creator
>>      "" ,
>>      "" ,
>>      "" ,
>>      "" .
>> 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