# Linking to IdRef. A Read/Write Network of Authority Data for/by Humans and Machine

Aline Le Provost, Yann Nicolas, François Mistral

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

► To cite this version:

Aline Le Provost, Yann Nicolas, François Mistral. Linking to IdRef. A Read/Write Network of Authority Data for/by Humans and Machine. IFLA World Library and Information Congress 83th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Aug 2017, Wroclaw, Poland. hal-02139256

HAL Id: hal-02139256

https://hal.science/hal-02139256

Submitted on 24 May 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Linking to IdRef.
## A Read/Write Network of Authority Data for/by Humans and Machine

**Aline Le Provost**

Bibliographic Agency for Higher Education, Montpellier, France.
le-provost@abes.fr

**Yann Nicolas**

Bibliographic Agency for Higher Education, Montpellier, France.
nicolas@abes.fr

**François Mistral**

Bibliographic Agency for Higher Education, Montpellier, France.
mistral@abes.fr

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Copyright © 2017 by Aline Le Provost, Yann Nicolas and François Mistral. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

**Abstract:**

This article presents IdRef (Identifiers and Referentials) an authority database combined with a tool box and services provided for the French higher education community. Historically, university libraries have been IdRef's main users (since the creation of the Sudoc union catalogue in 2000) but new actors have become involved as users which has stimulated the development of interoperability of systems associated with research data. To accompany work towards this objective, ABES has looked for automatic ways of generating links to authority records while also working on the diagnosis and enhancement of the quality of existing links. Although there is a massive amount of data requiring links including article authors, the quality of links is a priority because systemic interconnection and the reuse of data in the LOD (Linked Open Data) system constitute a vector which spreads both good and bad elements. We shall give details of some of the findings from the Qualinca research project into the quality of links in document catalogues. Along with algorithms and code, Qualinca has produced a prototype interface designed as a space where humans and algorithms can collaborate. For a given name, the algorithms calculate new links and evaluate existing links, all of which can be confirmed or cancelled by human users. Users can also give a little help to an algorithm if required. Today, manual unitary cataloguing is no longer sufficient. New environments need to be invented with variable geometries (unit records, sets of records, databases) and a mixed demography of human users plus algorithms. Cooperation and quality must remain the pillars of such environments.

**Keywords:** Authority control, Quality, Data alignments, Identifiers, Automatization
# 1 INTRODUCTION

ABES was created in 2000 to create and coordinate Sudoc, the collective catalogue of French universities. Progressively, the initial scope was broadened to include libraries at many higher education institutions and currently Sudoc includes nearly 150 libraries of varied size and types of collections.

Since this founding initiative, ABES has diversified its activities by developing new catalogues and databases with specific contents: digital theses<fnref n="1" /> (2006), archives and manuscripts<fnref n="2" /> (2007), scientific publishers' archives<fnref n="3" /> (2011). To counterbalance this diversification strategy which actually was contrary to the original vision of Sudoc as an exclusive and exhaustive database, ABES chose to make a priority of the power of authority data. Rather than gathering all our data into an integrated base with its own local authority file, the decision was taken to make this authority data independent both technically and commercially and also open to our partners. The Sudoc authorities are no more - long live "IdRef" (2010-).

# 2 IDREF – THE MASS LIBERATION OF AUTHORITY DATA

IdRef is a generic open application which enables all users to access and read authority data on the web and all partners to edit the data in their own environments.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 – IdRef, a dynamic production network</figcaption></figure>

IdRef has several interoperability systems and tools - a living administered database of authority records with unique, perennial identification; a website where users can search on, consult and find links to document catalogues; a professional full web tool to produce authority data; an access portal for open data under open licences which can be reused by web services, can be the subject of search requests *via* a Solr engine and can be harvested in OAI-PMH; an "interpreter" of data in multiple standard formats for human users and machines (html, xml, rdf, json).

<footnote n="1">¹ https://www.theses.fr/</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² http://www.calames.abes.fr/</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Through the ISTEX project: http://www.istex.fr/istex-excellence-initiative-of-scientific-and-technical-information/</footnote>
Finally, right from its origins, IdRef has also worked in favour of Linked Data. For 7 years now, all the authority data has been rigorously exposed to the RDF format in real time to make sure it is always perfectly up-to-date. Users will soon be able to search on this data using a dedicated sparql endpoint.

# 3 IDREF – TAKING CHARGE OF DATA QUALITY

This increased visibility and accessibility of the authority data brings with it increased responsibility regarding quality. In a decentralized network with continual and massive document indexing activity, this is a true catalyst. This data is open and reused which means that there are also correction requests from third parties. The question of the authority data's quality is therefore an integral part of the IdRef project. The idea of quality covers several aspects namely spotting and correcting anomalies, increasing the volume and accuracy of information in the document records and finally the greater expertise of increasingly numerous and diverse producers.

## 3.1 The increased expertise of historical producers

The enhancement and promotion of cataloguing of authorities is a core ambition for IdRef. Each organization belonging to the shared cataloguing network has its own mandated expert - the “authority correspondent”. These professionals are informed and competent regarding questions of author identification and accurate attribution for their publications. Therefore, given the scientific and political importance of research visibility<fnref n="4" />, their functions are tending to shift towards becoming services to research and researchers such as institutional repositories, researchers' pages and bibliometric applications. IdRef is there to accompany these changes.

## 3.2 The extension of the network of IdRef users

The dynamism of ABES's traditional networks (Sudoc, Thèses, Archives et manuscrits) attracts new partners for IdRef with heterogeneous profiles and varied usage objectives. These new user-producers in turn strengthen IdRef's vitality through their renewed forms of usages and differing, but stimulating, demands. They contribute to enhancing the quality of the data by detecting pre-existing errors or providing complementary information.

These new actors include - Persée, a free, open access portal to digital scientific publications; ADUM, a doctoral schools administration network; researchers from the Rhône-Alpes Historical Research Unit (LARHRA) specializing in modern and contemporary history with a particular commitment to the Digital Humanities; the Prelib research project focusing on literature in the Breton language at the Brittany Maison des Sciences de l'Homme (UMR 3549).

Moving forward, IdRef's aim is to become the main source of identification of French researchers. In the light of this, IdRef is making its own specific contribution to the Conditor project working on the complete indexing of French scientific production.

<footnote n="4">⁴ On this subject, see for example (Pontille, et al., 2016)</footnote>
# 4 IDREF AT THE HEART OF INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES

National-level cooperation involves the generation of alignments and the existence of an active joint production network. Internationally cooperation work essentially involves large-scale alignments. IdRef is fully integrated into these international initiatives.

Since 2012, under the historical but now obsolete label "Sudoc", IdRef has provided Viaf with authority records and bibliographic records. Each month, this dump is recovered and loaded in both a relational database and an RDF database which are both internal. ABES exploits this links repository to generate new alignments and detect anomalies in its own databases. ABES is also a member of ISNI whose identifiers are integrated as much as possible into IdRef records. Currently, 1,900,000 IdRef authorities have been given ISNIs. The cooperation project with Orcid was ratified in May 2016 with the signature of a *Memorandum of Understanding*<fnref n="5" /> and aims to increase interoperability between the two applications. IdRef-Orcid alignment work was also scheduled to identify those who are present in both reference databases.

# 5 MATCHING PROCESSES AT ABES

Disseminating reliable, persistent identifiers in the web's open environment and making data interoperable are important missions. To fulfil them, like other operators, we continually reinforce our technical resources for alignment. Initially this involves automated processes which are intended to be reliable and autonomous.

## 5.1 Deriving

When the resources concerned are eBooks, it is highly probable that other editions of the same work are catalogued in Sudoc or Worldcat. If the author identifiers are present, they can be derived using the flexibility of the RDF format<fnref n="6" />. To find these resources on Sudoc, we use the ISBN of the print version as a priority and otherwise the title and author's name. If a document has several authors, we make sure the right identifiers are assigned to the right authors by using a name comparison function. This strategy has its limits however - it cannot be applied to book chapters and articles which are not catalogued on Sudoc or Worldcat.

## 5.2 Clustering

Publishers' metadata contains information which goes further than traditional bibliographic data but which can be highly useful administratively such as affiliations, biographies or e-mail addresses. The latter are precious in helping gather references to an author in different documents naming the same person. An e-mail address generally never changes owner, so if two homonymous references to an author have the same address then it must be the same person. Thanks to this information, we gather author references under the same provisional identifier which we then attempt to align with IdRef.

<footnote n="5">⁵ https://orcid.org/blog/2016/07/11/abes-and-orcid-memorandum-understanding</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Since 2012 under the label of "metadata hub", ABES has used RDF technology to develop tools to import and enrich publishers' data.</footnote>
## 5.3 Calculating

Information which cannot be derived can be examined using algorithm dedicated to the matching against IdRef authorities, ISNI identities or ORCID identifiers. The algorithm uses the author's surname and first name in the reference which needs to be linked to run a fuzzy search on the target reference database and thus isolate a relevant set of candidates for linking. Next it uses precise criteria to compare all the information associated with the author reference and the information associated with each candidate authority.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 – Diagram of the process of alignment using calculations</figcaption></figure>

References to authors in the publication context are rich in information (surname, first name, document title, publication date, subject indexing, co-contributors, etc.) but an authority record often provides much less information on an author (surname, first name, birth and death dates). However, richer information can nevertheless be gathered by following authority links to bibliographic records. These include titles, dates, subjects, co-contributors, etc. and are thus used to enrich the authority to create what we call a "superauthORITY". This principle does not just apply to authorities in the strict sense of the term but also works for clustered author references (see above).

Finally the comparison results are analyzed according to the simple rules of alignment towards a sole candidate (see figure 3). If there is any doubt, the algorithm refrains from creating a link and sometimes sends an alert message which is taken into account by experts who can then make corrections in the database(s) concerned. Very often, anomalies detected in this way correspond to duplicate authority entries or pre-existing linking errors.

**3 simples matching rules**

* Rule 1 : the name is not different and the titles or co-contributors are close.

* Rule 2 : the name is a little different and the titles or co-contributors are quasi-identical.

* Rule 3 : there is just one candidate for linking (despite an in-depth search) and the name is identical and there are no criteria which tend towards there being a distance.

<caption>Figure 3 – Simple rules to reliably deduce alignments</caption>
# 6 DIAGNOSING, CHECKING, PROVIDING ASSISTANCE

The Qualinca research project (2012-2016) provided an in-depth study of problems in linking quality. We measured the extent of the errors and gaps in our own catalogue and worked in close collaboration with researchers from the GraphIK<fnref n="7" /> team in Montpellier to develop SudoQual, a programme dedicated to quality diagnosis. After presenting how it functions, we shall show how a human user can use a dedicated web interface to interact with this programme.

In a previous project, (Chein, Leclère, & Nicolas, 2014) showed that the strategy of alignment *via* the generation of superauthorities (see above) involved a risk of federating information from bibliographic records wrongly linked to the authority which could in turn lead the alignment system to make a mistake as well. SudoQual manages this risk by using an incremental process - new enrichments of the superauthority are only carried out after the authority link. At the moment of initialization, the so-called "source" link <fnref n="8" /> is considered to be valid. The advantage of this method is that it neutralizes anomalies in advance thus avoiding problems with them later in the process.

## 6.1 A linking expertise model

**Author references, authority identifiers: references to real world entities**

For (Chein, Gutierrez, & Leclère, 2015) an identifier is a unique reference to a real world entity, in this case a person. In a bibliographic record (e.g. an author reference), this is a contextual reference. If the entity concerned is the subject of an authority record then it is an authority reference. An authority link is a *sameAs* relation established between a contextual reference and an authority reference. The "non-authority link" is absent from library catalogues and is a *differentFrom* relation.

<footnote n="7">⁷ GraphIK (Graphs for Inferences on Knowledge) is a joint research team of the French National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control (Inria, Sophia Antipolis), the University of Montpellier and the CNRS https://team.inria.fr/graphik/. Its work focuses on representations of knowledge and how to use logical approaches for reasoning based on these representations.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ In an authority record, there is a field (810 in UNIMARC) for the source of information which was consulted. When this source is a document described in the catalogue, a link source is deduced between this document and the authority in question.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 – Links in a document catalogue under authority control</figcaption></figure>

## From tacit to explicit knowledge

Cataloguers faced with a linking problem make successive steps of reasoning based on knowledge which is often tacit. The decision to link, not link or correct a link can be made because of a set of existing presumptions but the clues which influence this decision remain implicit. The first part of our work consisted in transforming this tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.

ABES authorities experts were asked to make assertions on links between publications and their contributors (see figure 5).

"A person tends to publish several times within the same organization (e.g. laboratory)"

"A person's publications often cover the same themes"

"A person tends to republish with the same publisher"

"Two findings with the same title in general have the same contributors"

"A person tends to publish several times with the same co-contributors"

"A person cannot have published before been born "

<caption>Figure 5 - Assertions about linking</caption>

However, how can the degree of certainty about each assertion be expressed? Also how can elements of knowledge which justify the assertion be made clear? We have developed a linking model which uses logical rules to formalize cataloguers' knowhow. This model has several levels - the attribute level, the comparison criterion level and the co-reference or difference rule level.

An attribute is an **element of knowledge** associated with a reference. An attribute is extracted from the bibliographic or authority record for the reference with which it is associated.

**Form of the name:** "Paul Otlet"

**Date of birth:** "1868"

**Title:** "Traité de Documentation : le livre sur le livre"

**Dewey Index:** "020.9"

**Keyword:** "Bibliothéconomie"

**Affiliation:** "Mundaneum (Mons, Belgique)"

<caption>Figure 6 – An example of a contextual reference's attributes</caption>
A criterion is the **function which compares** the values of certain attributes to obtain a proximity or distance rating for two references.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7 – Criteria with their possible proximity or distance ratings</figcaption></figure>

A rule is an **assertion about the relation between two references** based on a set of conditions embodied by the criteria. A rule can be used to conclude that there is closeness (co-reference) or distance (difference) of varying levels of intensity. For this, qualitative trust values have been defined and put in order (see figure 7).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8 – The trust values for co-reference / difference rules</figcaption></figure>

## Initial partitioning and calculation of relations

We designed SudoQual, a programme which is partly based on this expertise model and partly on the incremental process to diagnose authority links.

A fuzzy search is run on a first name and surname on Sudoc and IdRef to isolate a subset made up of authority references and contextual references. The latter may or may not have an authority link. The aim of this is to construct the most relevant subset (or "partition") possible given the input parameters. For this reasons, the names of the results obtained may be quite different from the input parameters.

For this partition, a factbase in which all references are associated with attributes which come from the extraction of data from the catalogue and the authority file. This provides the programme with the necessary information to compare each contextual reference with each authority reference independently of the initial link and thus the iterative calculation process can begin. If a logical rule applies between two references then a (positive or negative) relation is immediately deduced. At the end of this stage, the programme will have created its own graph of relations between the subset's references (see figure 8).
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9 – Diagram of the relations established following the application of logical rules</figcaption></figure>

Next, a heuristic establishes different types of links - safe links, suggested links or impossible links (see figure 9) - based on the nature (→← co-reference or ←→ difference) and degree of trust of the relations.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10 – Links established by the link calculation heuristic</figcaption></figure>

## Iterative calculation in n steps

Figure 9 shows that at the end of this first step of establishing links, certain contextual references remain isolated i.e. without a relation to an authority reference. For others, the relation was not sufficient to calculate a safe link. It is likely that the enrichment of authority references with the attributes of contextual references whose links have been checked and approved will lead to new possible relations being discovered. The programme therefore moves on to a new calculation step. As long as new links are calculated, SudoQual carries out a new iteration. As we explained at the start of this section, this way of functioning continually guarantees the superauthority's quality.

## Diagnosis

After the last iteration, the programme compares the calculated links with the links which were initially established in the database and runs a quality diagnosis of the initial links. This diagnosis is in the form of a status which judges the quality of the link which the contextual reference possesses in the database (see below).
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11 - a contextual reference's 5 diagnosis statuses</figcaption></figure>

## 6.2 Evaluation

We ran the first SudoQual evaluation on a sample of 57 authority records and 359 bibliographic records. An ABES expert first checked all the authority links and corrected them if necessary using the traditional cataloguing tool. This human diagnosis was then compared with SudoQual's diagnosis. In over 70% of cases SudoQual made the same choices as the expert with over half being certain choices (safe links) and only made mistakes in 0.3% of cases. For the rest of the cases, SudoQual was not capable of making a choice but could have made suggestions.

## 6.3 Between automatization and assistance for decision-making

These intermediary results show our programme's potential for automatic diagnosis and also for providing assistance for decision-making. Actually, in all cases for which SudoQual remains indecisive, the cataloguer must be able to take over easily and can indeed take advantage of suggestions to make this easier. Better still, the cataloguer must be able to give SudoQual a hand so that it launches new calculations. In the following section, we shall present this decision-making assistance tool.

## 6.4 An interface for human-machine collaboration

Figure 11 shows the tool's general principle which is to highlight the differences between the initial links (including missing links shown in blue) in the database and the links calculated by SudoQual. With a *drag and drop* system, users can create or modify authority links. By selecting a contextual reference, they can approve or reject an authority link.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12 - Diagram of the display interface</figcaption></figure>
ABES planned for the long term and decided to take work on this subject further to produce
an innovative tool for the representation of authorities enriched by their bibliographic links.
This interface is currently connected to the Sudoc catalogue and IdRef and can be used to
validate, correct and create authority links. The image-based representation of elements
(contextual references, authority references and links) makes it easier to quickly understand a
problem and find possible solutions. Its icons, symbols and simple, fluid interactions (drag
and drop, clicking, hover, etc.) make the interface less tedious and even fun to use. To
complement this, clear messages enable users to work in stages and successfully master the
series of actions needed to make a real modification to the Sudoc catalogue.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13 – A display of the partition for "Bessière, Christian". The colours and icons indicate whether the links are approved, rejected or remain to be diagnosed</figcaption></figure>

Users are always in control of the situation. According to their requirements, they can work
autonomously or use SudoQual's diagnoses. If the latter is the case, users can approve
SudoQual's choices and benefit from the programmes "advice" on suggested and forbidden
links. They are not forced to accept such "advice" and have the right to object. Ultimately,
users' decisions will always take priority over the programme's choices and suggestions.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14 – Left - the initial partition; Right - the partition as diagnosed by SudoQual</figcaption></figure>

Quality control of the bibliographic links requires access to information of varying levels of
detail and complexity. For this reasons users can access an overall display with the zoom out
function or zoom in for a more analytical display. Browsing between the different display
modes is fluid.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 15 – Display of the attributes of a contextual reference (left) and an authority reference (right)</figcaption></figure>

Finally, the interface also enables users to give the programme a hand. The example below shows how the simple manual approval of a link enables SudoQual to run a new calculation step leading to the approval of many extra links and the creation of new links. Working in this "back-and-forth" manner can involve several iterations.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 16 – Left: the partition diagnosed once by SudoQual; Right: the partition diagnosed by SudoQual after the manual approval of a link</figcaption></figure>

## 6.5 Future perspectives

SudoQual and the display application are still prototypes produced by research. A great deal of work on performance optimization is necessary for large volumes of data to be processed or to provide real-time working tools for our networks' members. A study is underway to define and evaluate the human and technical resources required to respond to the crucial question of improving calculation times.

We also need to progress in configuring SudoQual's settings both to interpret its conclusions more easily and to optimize those conclusions. Interpreting means being able to easily go back to the source, namely whatever rules, criteria, attributes are involved, and to measure the impact of modifications. Optimization means setting the programme up to respond as effectively as possible to users' requirements as regards both the constitution mode for work subsets and the importance of a logical rule applied to a given corpus.
We now possess a solidly proven concept but we cannot do without a large-scale evaluation.
The nature and wealth of the processed data and its level of quality are all possible criteria to
run in-depth evaluations of our expertise model and perhaps modify it if necessary.

7 QUALITY CONTROL AND DAILY CATALOGUING

We have given a detailed presentation of a tool dedicated to the quality control of the links between authority records and bibliographic records. This kind of tool cannot exist in a kind of vacuum with no regard to the overall daily functioning of cooperative cataloguing. Quality control operations are costly and therefore require prior incentives allied to a long-lasting, visible impact afterwards.

Quality control cannot just rely on the individual good will of cataloguers. ABES has already set up different initiatives and systems which incite the Sudoc network's libraries to run or take part in correction projects with jointly defined objectives and scope. In this way, committing to quality which provides a service for all is recognized and given more value. This increased value in turn promotes a network attitude.

However this investment in quality is only possible if it ensures a long-lasting return. This notably involves the capitalization of this work - links approved by cataloguers in the Qualinca environment cannot be considered in the same way as ordinary links which daily cataloguing creates or invalidates. These links have superior value and validity and this needs to be made clear on the Sudoc database for the benefit of both human users and machines. This would make their future conclusions more reliable and quicker by avoiding the need for certain analyses or calculations to be carried out again.

But, unlike quality control, daily cataloguing depends on the waiting list of documents to be processed. In this context, the systematic quality of the catalogue and, beyond that, of the web of data, is only a thing of the future or a value rather than an actual objective. What can Qualinca promise cataloguers subjected to the pressure of a waiting list of books? The idea is to make their lives easier and enhance the value of their interventions.

Cataloguers' lives are made easier by sparing them pointless tasks and making tasks which really do have to be done easier. As we have seen, linking is only one operation in the overall work required to diagnose and repair links - a diagnosis finds there is a missing link and the repair function proposes the creation of that link. In some cases, machine-generated link proposals are reliable enough to be followed to the letter and saved in the catalogue thus avoiding work for cataloguers. In other cases, the machine provides assistance for decision-making rather than a ready-made solution. This assistance must be integrated into the whole cataloguing environment, whether it is Sudoc or another. Cataloguers should not have to shift to a quality control interface whose functions offer more options than they actually require. From an ergonomic standpoint, this integration needs to be intuitive enough to enable a quick decision and informative enough for it to be the right decision! Sometimes the right decision is not to link. The machine needs to suggest that the cataloguer does not link and also draft the new authority record to be created, find it in a support reference database or prepare the merger of two authorities identified as duplicates.

If cataloguers' work is made easier by the machine, they can concentrate on tasks with more added value such as doing what the machine cannot do, cannot do well enough or helping the machine to do more and be more effective. Certain linking operations are too difficult for a
machine. If the machine has been correctly configured it will give up and pass the job to a
human cataloguer. To make a link manually, cataloguers will need to a little time to analyze
the authorities present and should take advantage of this to carry out true systematic quality
control with long-lasting effects. This involves interrupting the cataloguing flow to *invest*
time in quality control. Cataloguers can thus decide to systematically check all the links
relative to the name concerned using the tool described above but this contribution to the
overall long-term quality may be more modest. When cataloguers check or complete source
links, for example, this is a simple operation with significant benefits as it gives the machine
a solid base for future iterative calculations.

8 CONCLUSION

The IdRef project's target objective is widely shared by other actors. It is to provide the STI community with solid references databases for the dissemination and promotion of scientific knowledge in the most open way possible. Historically, libraries are experts in this and are thus an important part of the process. The close links they maintain with many different actors (publishers, universities, cultural institutions) mean they are capable of federating scattered initiatives.

We have shown how a bibliographic agency of national stature can steer the decentralization
of the production and management of authorities which have become open, linked reference
datasets by providing technical means and being attentive to the requirements and
expectations of the members of a now multicultural network.

In the world's knowledge 'ocean', the reliability of this data is of essential importance. Information from multiple sources is made to flow into federative systems like VIAF or ISNI, gradually creating essential data irrigation streams. However for the ocean to reach its highest level and not be polluted by faulty streams, data sources have to be looked after "upstream". This is what (Angjeli, Mac Ewan, & Boulet, 2014) called for and what we are endeavouring to do... despite sometimes stormy seas.

Acknowledgments

The authors warmly thank Michel Chein, Alain Gutierrez, Michel Leclère, Clément Sipieter, all the members of the GraphIK team and Brett Choquet for the fruitful, lasting collaboration they have had with us over recent years. The authors also thank their I.T. colleagues Cornelia Stratulat and Christophe Bonnefond for their persistence and commitment to this long-term project.

References

References

Angjeli, A., Mac Ewan, A., & Boulet, V. (2014). ISNI and VIAF – Transforming ways of trustfully consolidating identities. *IFLA WLIC 2014 - Lyon - Libraries, Citizens, Societies: Confluence for Knowledge.*

Chein, M., Gutierrez, A., & leclère, M. (2015). *Un problème d'identification d'entités nommées dans des bases de données documentaires*. Rapport de recherche, LIRMM.

Chein, M., Leclère, M., & Nicolas, Y. (2014). Sudocad: a knowledge-based system for the author linkage problem. *Knowledge and Systems Engineering*, pp. 65-83.
Pontille, D., Séné, A., Prêtre, V., Pothier, V., Deniau, N., Durand-Barthez, M., & Girard, F. (2016). Éloge de la complexité: la signature des chercheurs et le millefeuille de l'affiliation institutionnelle dans les processus d'évaluation de la recherche. *Ethics, Medicine and Public Health*, 2(3), pp. 456-465.