Session Title

From Name Authority to Identity Management and Scholarly Communication

Description

The impact of linked data and the increasing use of researcher identifiers, such as ORCID, can be seen in the shift from the national authority control to the global and web-based identity management with linked data capability (PCC Task Group on Identity Management in NACO, 2016; Durocheret al., 2016). The presenter will discuss her evaluation of various researcher identity management systems and their metadata and a possible metadata model that is inclusive of metadata from such diverse systems. Researcher identifiers systems under evaluation are those used in the United States, with international coverage in their scopes, including both closed and open data, but excluding discipline-specific systems. This evaluation has a practical implication for the design of metadata for web archiving of researchers’ profiles at the University of Tennessee Libraries. The researcher identifiers’ systems to be analyzed are LCNAF, VIAF, ISNI, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Mendeley, ORCID, SCOPUS, ResearcherID, Academia.edu, Linkedin, Microsoft Academic Search, Symplectic Elements and PIVOT.

Start Date

15-3-2018 1:00 PM

End Date

15-3-2018 2:00 PM

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Mar 15th, 1:00 PM Mar 15th, 2:00 PM

From Name Authority to Identity Management and Scholarly Communication

The impact of linked data and the increasing use of researcher identifiers, such as ORCID, can be seen in the shift from the national authority control to the global and web-based identity management with linked data capability (PCC Task Group on Identity Management in NACO, 2016; Durocheret al., 2016). The presenter will discuss her evaluation of various researcher identity management systems and their metadata and a possible metadata model that is inclusive of metadata from such diverse systems. Researcher identifiers systems under evaluation are those used in the United States, with international coverage in their scopes, including both closed and open data, but excluding discipline-specific systems. This evaluation has a practical implication for the design of metadata for web archiving of researchers’ profiles at the University of Tennessee Libraries. The researcher identifiers’ systems to be analyzed are LCNAF, VIAF, ISNI, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Mendeley, ORCID, SCOPUS, ResearcherID, Academia.edu, Linkedin, Microsoft Academic Search, Symplectic Elements and PIVOT.