Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • 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.

...

  • 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

Areas that may benefit from specifications 

  •  Minimum 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 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

  • 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?

...