Regarding the naming of things-- Bruce is right that dates etc. are not
properly part of a person's "name." Maybe it would help to bear in mind
that "name" in this usage is characterizing a more generalized concept
which could be called "heading" or "access point." The compound of
information including name and other data forms an access point which
identifies an entity; hence it's a "name" heading, or more briefly, a "name."

The more complicated question is whether any fixed "legible" form for
identifying an entity is needed once a logically unique identifier like a
record number or URI has been provided. In principle, the latter is all
that is needed to ensure unique identification of an entity or concept. The
data associated with that identifier could be arranged in any number of
ways, with our without being "legibly" distinct from similarly named
entities, without compromising its logical uniqueness. The works of five
persons identified only as "John Smith" could be correctly sorted under
five identical "John Smith" headings, as long as a unique identifier lies
behind each one. Likewise, the presentation of one person's name could be
algorithmically constructed any number of ways from a base set of data for
presentation (John Smith; Smith, John; Smith, John, 1950- ; J. Smith; etc.)
without compromising the uniqueness of the entity. "Authorization" then
becomes less formal/nominal and more ontological (if I'm using those terms
appropriately).

Stephen