In message <[log in to unmask]>,
"Lee, Edmund" <[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>For what it's worth the NMR currently has an authority file to cover the
>recording of People. We've looked into this and backed away hastily alarmed
>at the potential scale that a more fully developed list could rapidly grow
>to.
It would probably help to talk in terms of databases rather than "lists"
- they scale rather better! (And it's what you are using anyway, isn't
it?) However, thesaurus databases are only useful if they can be
accessed as easily and as widely as a printed list - which brings us
back to the issue of an interchange/delivery format, I fear!
For massive tasks like People, it obviously makes sense to develop a
strategy where a number of projects can each develop a resource which
meets the needs of their own specialist area, but using common standards
so that users can search across _all_ "People" thesauri (for example)
and get back hits from any or all of the individual databases involved.
(The "common standards" need only apply to asking questions and getting
answers back: there is NO need to impose uniform database structures on
every project.)
Richard Light.
--
Richard Light
SGML/XML and Museum Information Consultancy
[log in to unmask]
|