Re: Proposal to include ISNI

I donıt know if I mentioned, but ISNI is not yet two years old. The data
quality improves over time, with each data set that is added.
Additionally, there are teams at the British Library and the National
Library of France who do manual editing of the data. The database itself
has over 17 million names. Weıre aware that itıs not perfect, but always
working on corrections - you may have noticed the link that one can click
on to offer improvements to any record.

At three different bibliographic database companies Iıve worked for (Rovi,
Barnes & Noble, and now Bowker), weıve had algorithmic correction of name
data, and then canonical author names that get manual attention - those
authors who are more likely to be sought out - and then the rest of the
names are dealt with on an ad hoc basis (which of course means quite a lot
of fires to put out on any given day). Thatıs the nature of data
cleansing, unfortunately, and the data sets get bigger all the time.

While you donıt have an ISNI yet, your name may well be provisionally
assigned an ISNI which, with the incorporation of a new data set, may lose
its provisional status. It really depends on the data sets that require
ISNI to communicate with other data sets.

And yes, I agree that thereıs no bar to using the Google Books URLs, nor
Amazon ASINs, or any other identifier; it just depends on what the use
case is.

On 11/20/13, 6:35 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Well, looking around at isni.org a bit, I have to say that they are doing
>a 
>rather poor job of providing stable unique identifiers for people, that
>is 
>unless Ian Horrocks is really triplets, all with the same first name.  Of
>course, as a researcher with a globally-unique name, I don't need to have
>an ISNI.
>
>The fact that schema.org has a field for ISBN that doesn't seem to be any
>bar 
>for using Google Books ISBN URLs as sameAs values for published works,
>nor 
>even for promoting such use.  Of course, it might be better to use
>different 
>Google Books URLs as sameAs values for books, as books and editions of
>books 
>are different.
>
>peter
>
>
>On 11/20/2013 02:21 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>> The difference is that in the case of ISNI, the canonical URI schema is
>>provided by the body maintaining the ISNI identifiers.
>> For ISBNs, there is no authoritative URI pattern available, despite the
>>fact that there exist several services that return representations for
>>(typically a subset of) ISBNs.
>>
>> Second, there has been a history of not deprecating / removing existing
>>elements from schema.org, so even if your argument was right, the case
>>for ISBN would be different, since it already exists in schema.org.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm.
>>>
>>> What then is
>>>
>>> http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN*{ISBN Number}
>>>
>>> This seems to be as good as, for example, Freebase URLs.
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>> *
>>> On 11/20/2013 01:46 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>>> Hi Laura,
>>> [...]
>>>> The difference to ISBN is that for ISBN codes, there is no canonical
>>>>URI schema defined (at least to my knowledge).
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> martin hepp
>> e-business & web science research group
>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>>
>> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
>> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
>> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
>> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>>           http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
>> skype:   mfhepp
>> twitter: mfhepp
>>
>> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>> =================================================================
>> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 23:53:09 UTC