Versions Compared

Key

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

...

  • 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

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

  • Document use cases and requirements for reconciliation as a service

  • 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

...

  • 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

...