...
Sharing remains important but may need to work differently from the way it used to.
Different models of collaboration or sharing between various participants throughout the identity management lifecycle
Different communities of practice: national, institutional, domain, regional.
For example, ISNI and publishers exchange information, as does the Getty and museums.
Collaboration with other language communities.
Need for examples of successful cooperative models that others can learn from.
Roles/responsibilities of various participants in the process (i.e. service providers, library community, publishers, standards community, etc.)
Publishers may care about identities because metadata sells, and they care about rights management.
Stakeholders looking for guidance from metadata community about requirements; CrossRef is a model.
- Role of hubs like Getty in facilitating collaboration.
Centralized versus distributed work, for example, VIAF aggregates data that could be done in one workflow.
Strong interest in developing minimum viable product specifications for shared data.
...
Perhaps NISO can shepherd some development of best practices.
Document and share existing or pilot workflows as model for other users. Examples exist among older projects as well.
What are social (e.g. membership) barriers to acceptance of existing authority infrastructure? E.g. SNAC is arguably more democratic than NACO.
How can we get smaller libraries and publishers to do some identity management “without even realizing they are doing it”? In other words, make is as seamless, automated and low-barrier as possible.
Need for sustainable business models.
Consider other community models, e.g. http://archesproject.org, http://vocab.getty.edu.
Potential areas for future work
The forum suggested a number of directions for future work which are summarized below. Some of them will be investigated during the course of the IMLS project, while others may be taken up in other venues as appropriate.
Project outputs
...
Draft of white paper and reference model that will serve as a public discussion document, and outlining key issues and recommendations for joint action
Survey relevant communities on local authority creation
survey may include: workflows, entity types, stakeholder roles, sustainability plans, integration/interoperability efforts, etc.
Compile actual or model workflows. Identify stakeholders and roles, including service providers
Share information on how Harvard is resolving issues with their local authorities, and model an identity management workflow
ISNI workflows and use cases (see Gatenby and MacEwan slides)
Workflows from BIBFLOW project
Identify patterns for sharing data
Stakeholder role analysis, e.g. publishers, service providers, libraries, academic institutions, scholars
Outline of how ISNI and VIAF relate to local authority needs
Possible draft specifications
Areas that may benefit from specifications
- Minimum viable product specification for identities (low-barrier entity creation)
Draft a document on obligations of data providers
Draft a specification for publishers to supply identity data
Examine CrossRef as a potential model
Application developers’ requirements
...
Potential collaborations and community actions
- Explore opportunities to work with publishers to acquire IDs with their data
Bring issues concerning identities to the FOLIO project’s UX team; encourage collaboration with community partners
Document Seek use cases and requirements for reconciliation as a service (already initiated by Peter Murray in FOLIO forum)
Propose ways to share information on matching algorithms
Sustainability is a consideration
Utah IMLS-funded regional authority control project
Consider how such a service may or may not interact with a larger hub such as ISNI.
Initiate discussion on lowering the barriers to NACO participation
Ways of sharing “how to” information
...
Other issues for further investigation
...
Outline of how ISNI and VIAF relate to local authority needs
Use cases and models for administrative and provenance metadata
Change management
Sustainability and business models
Linked data infrastructure
Privacy
Others?
...
...
Next steps and second meeting
...
Future project discussions will be topic-oriented, with nominated discussion leaders.
- Asynchronous communications preferred, discussion leads will schedule periods for focussed discussion
- Additional participants on Google Group welcome
- Consider spinning off discussions in other forums if appropriate
Partners may consider possibilities for further grant proposals
Project leads in discussions concerning the possibility of holding the second meeting in DC
Projected dates for second meeting in March or April 2017
...