I'd like to follow-up on something but it's  too difficult to decide on 
whose conversation to latch on to!  I was burned by this earlier this 
summer so it's still uppermost in my mind.  I agree that an explosion of 
identifiers will be necessary.  As we make our transition to linked 
data, ALL controlled headings will need an identifier, not just the ones 
we decide to create according to the PCC standard.  The rub comes in 
that we don't create identifiers for persons, we create them for 
controlled strings.  I used to think this was a semantic difference of 
minimal importance but it turns out to be key in RDF.  Someone showed me 
what would be necessary to move from an authority for a controlled 
string, through a Real World Object, to something representing a person 
and it ain't pretty.

If we agree that linked data and RDF are our future, then we need to 
come to grips with this soon.  OCLC has recently redefined its 
authoritative strings for people as person to function in 
this context.  I think we have a couple of options.  First, we could 
follow the same path as VIAF and revise the NACO authority file to look 
to the future.  We are already mucking around with it.  Maybe this could 
be included.

Option two would be to continue to focus on authorities as controlled 
strings.  If we do this , however, we will need a parallel file to 
represent these strings as persons.  This option does seem a dangerous 
path but not one without attractions.  We could continue our work as we 
do now, we would not have to once again alter all of the LC NAF, we 
would not have to focus on a NACO-lite (and it does seem odd to have a 
light version of something whose purpose is authoritative strings).  
These "lite" headings could be created in the parallel "person" file.  
Almost anyway could be authorized to create a "person" identifier.  It's 
those authoritative strings that get us every time.

The downside to this is those of us that move to linked data sooner 
rather than later would only need the person identifiers. We would 
probably stop our NACO work for creation of identifiers in this new 
file.  Like I said, I never even thought about this until a few months 
ago but it will be one of the most important issues we resolve moving 


On 10/3/2014 8:33 AM, Beth Picknally Camden wrote:
> Everyone:
> It's time for one last strategic theme for discussion.   I would like 
> us to look at Recommendation 3 for the ACI report: "Significantly 
> expand the ranks of those who can create
> identifiers/contribute authority data".   They propose two ways of 
> expanding:
>   * Expand NACO participation with a "NACO lite" level of participation
>   * Endorse the creation of a separate, parallel authority file to
>     which non-NACO members could make contributions
> What are the pros/cons of these options?   Should we do both, or 
> neither?   Other thoughts on this recommendations?
> -Beth
> -- 
> ********************************************************
> Beth Picknally Camden
> Goldstein Director of Information Processing
> University of Pennsylvania Libraries
> [log in to unmask]
> "You must be the change you wish to see in the world".
> --Mahatma Gandhi
> *********************************************************

Philip E. Schreur
Head, Metadata Department
Stanford University
650-725-1120 (fax)