Page History

Summary drafted by Isabel Quintana

Meeting themes

Workflow

Finding right mix for scalability and sustainability.
Role of data science and AI.
For both human and machine resolution we need an ensemble of information about an entity.

Provenance metadata very important for certain use cases, e.g. where identification of material is part of the scholarly enterprise. Examples: rare materials, archival data.
Not all consumers have the same needs, and tracking metadata provenance brings scalability issues. Needs must be defined by reference to real use cases and functional requirements.
We can keep the information at a basic level; or we can keep complex data but only expose a subset; or we could expose it all and allow the user to take only what they need.
Role of aggregator may be just that: to aggregate, and not necessarily to vouch for the data collected. But this makes recording provenance important.
How can we track this information? We don’t have a well established or widely shared model, infrastructure, or process for doing this.
Intellectual property/business model questions also play into this issue.

Whose responsibility is this? What are the obligations of providers?
Even if one or two databases exchange data, that data does not usually make it back out to all the contributors to that database.
But heavily centralized and regulated processes (e.g. NACO) also impose costs.

Some skepticism voiced about linked data.
Bridging or elimination of silos brings great potential for enriching knowledge. Importance of communities who do not participate in library authorities but have names that appear in library authorities. See e.g. RelFinder: http://www.visualdataweb.org/relfinder.php
It allows for very rich representation of relationships. What level of alignment is needed for interoperability and reuse?
What is the best way to do versioning?
Need better understanding of what data and services aggregators need to provide.
Local vs shared URIs

Mint at point of need vs requirements for stability.
Issues of trust/veracity of statements if we don’t maintain data locally and just point to another place.
Risks involved in sameAs assertions.

...

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

Project outputs

Draft of white paper that will serve as a public discussion document, and outlining key issues and recommendations for joint action
Survey relevant communities on local authority creation
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
- Workflows from BIBFLOW project
- Identify patterns for sharing data
Further analysis of roles of stakeholders, e.g. publishers, service providers, libraries, academic institutions, scholars
Outline of how ISNI and VIAF relate to local authority needs

Possible draft 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

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 use cases and requirements for reconciliation as a service
Propose ways to share information on matching algorithms

Consider how such a service may or may not interact with a larger hub such as ISNI.

Other issues for further investigation

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

Space shortcuts