Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Need It! - Tina Feick
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•734 views
Presented at the 2010 Electronic Resources & Libraries Conference. -- Tina Feick, Harrassowitz -- Abstract: After two surveys and transactional analysis, NISO's I2 Working Group is ready to move forward to finalize the metadata required to define the indentifier, consider options for other identifier standardsm ensure legacy systems are addressedm and explore possible registries and maintenance agencies. Next steps for the identifier standard will be discussed along with the need for support for testing and plans for implementation within the e-resource supply chain, insitutional repository sector, and library resource management (ILL).
![I 2 (Institutional Identifiers) Working Group ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],02012010 Tina Feick]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (15)
Ähnlich wie Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Need It! - Tina Feick
Ähnlich wie Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Need It! - Tina Feick (20)
Mehr von Electronic Resources & Libraries
Mehr von Electronic Resources & Libraries (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Need It! - Tina Feick
- 1. Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Really Need It! ER&L 2010 Austin, Texas February 1, 2010 Tina Feick 02/01/2010 Tina Feick
- 14. Scenario A – Electronic Supply Chain Across all Sectors 02/01/2010 Tina Feick Section Leader Libraries Cindy Hepfer, Univ. of Buffalo Intermediaries (Agents, Online Hosts, Aggregators) Tina Feick, HARRASSOWITZ Helen Henderson, Ringgold Publishers Andrea Lopez, Annual Reviews Research Janifer Gatenby, OCLC Systems Peter McCracken, SerialsSolutions
- 22. IR Survey Results – “SURVEY SAYS” 02/01/2010 Tina Feick
- 24. Library Resource Management Workflows Identified 02/01/2010 Tina Feick Library Workflow
- 29. Delays, Debate and Angst 02012010 Tina Feick
Hinweis der Redaktion
- 58.1% of repositories include identifiers for themselves 46.1% of repositories include identifiers for their organizations 74.2% of repositories that include institutional identifiers also include identifiers for institutional subdivisions 37.5% use systems to assign – Handle.net, Dspace, DNs, OCLC, ISIL, ePrints, EDINA, CDL 41.7% use manual processes to assign – repository team, single individual, outside department 9.7% use a combination 31.9% have yet to encounter any issues they would consider potentially solvable by standardized institutional identifiers 14.9% state a standardized ii would have helped track institutions across name changes, disambiguate similarly-named institutions, and tie collections to institutions 10.6% would havehlped identify and enumerate organizational unites, esp in multi-lingual units 8.5% would have helped tie authors to institutions 56.6% not used for other librasry activities 22.6% are used in other contexts 60.3% important to have single identifier Other issues – little agreement – assignment of identifiers, 1/3 prefer to reflect hierarchy in the identifiers, agency best suited to manage Metadata – CORE – institution name element,