> Just a quick comment, I understood that "access points" were means of
> identifying an entity for humans. Isn't this separate from identifiers
> which are for use within software, which need not ever see the light
> of day outside software?
Well, a question would be who we're creating RDF/FRBR data for,
computers or humans?
> Coming up with an author/title "access point" for a work or expression
> sounds like something quite different from coining a persistent URI to
> identify the same work or expression for use within web-based
> information systems.
"Access point" is a pipedream that works when the volume and
controversy is low. I don't understand why we should hang on to a
practice that is proven to be tricky (and sometimes downright working
against us).
> I understand that LC are creating "permalinks" for bibliographic
> records? I think the "permalink" idea is a great way to tackle the
> need for identifiers. I.e. if each authority created a permalink URI
> identifying each bibliographic entity for which they hold a record, we
> could then use the permalink URIs in our RDF/RDA metadata to link all
> the entities together.
What really is needed is a piece of infrastructure in which librarians
all over the world can create permalinks to things. There's already
FOSS available through Conal Tuohy at New Zealand Electronic Text
Centre, called "Entity Authority Tool Set" (EATS). More info on him
with links at ;
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/name-121558.html
Here's an example of an author PSI;
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/name-202458.html
Regards,
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
|