Vol. 13 No. 1 (2022): The Bibliographic Control in the Digital Ecosystem

Call me by your name: towards an authority data control shared between archives and libraries

Pierluigi Feliciati
Università degli studi di Macerata Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione, dei Beni Culturali e del Turismo

Published 2022-01-13


  • Archival description,
  • Semantic web,
  • Wikidata,
  • Authority data,
  • RiC
  • ...More

How to Cite

Feliciati, Pierluigi. 2022. “Call Me by Your Name: Towards an Authority Data Control Shared Between Archives and Libraries”. JLIS.It 13 (1):203-14. https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-12733.


An important and not often addressed topic – considering the issues opened by cross-disciplinary projects – is the shared control of authority records, or better authority metadata, extended to other documentary and cultural heritage sciences. This paper will examine the potential opened by multi-dimensional and networked logics in the representation of entities in the form of data towards which the document communities are converging. This approach is even more valid if we consider the users’ point of view, presently forced to jump from one information environment to another, and confront different names, forms and attributes for the same entities. The core entities to work on are persons, corporate bodies, places, chronological contexts, events, qualifying their relationships. After a brief resume of archival description’s peculiarity, the paper highlights the updated standards available, mostly IFLA-LRM and RiC, precious documents to start from and stimulate an active collaboration. To facilitate the sharing, control, and enrichment of authority data in the form of RDF assertions, librarians and archivists may follow several pathways: matching the existing conceptual models, converging on a shared data playground like Wikidata, and developing foundational meta-ontology.


Metrics Loading ...


  1. ANAI-ICAR. 2017. “Records in Contexts. A conceptual model for archival description (draft v0.1, September 2016). Il contributo italiano”, Quaderni del Mondo degli Archivi, 2 (luglio 2017),
  2. http://www.ilmondodegliarchivi.org/images/Quaderni/MdA_Quaderni_n2.pdf, Accessed April 6, 2021.
  3. Bergamin, Giovanni; Bacchi, Cristian. 2018. “New ways of creating and sharing bibliographic information: an experiment of using the Wikibase Data Model for UNIMARC data”. JLIS.it, v. 9,
  4. n. 3, p. 35-74, sep. 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it 12458. Accessed April 13, 2021.
  5. Bunn, Jenny. 2016. Results of the ARA SAT consultation on Records in Contexts, https://www.archives.org.uk/about/community/groups/viewbulletin/59-results-of-the-ara-sat-consultation-onrecords-incontexts.html?groupid=21. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  6. Chapman, J., C.. 2010. “Observing Users: an Empirical Analysis of User Interaction with Online Finding Aids”. Journal of Archival Organization, 8, 4-30 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1080/15332748.2010.484361. Accessed April 11, 2021.
  7. CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group. 2021. Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. Version 7.1, March 2021, http://www.cidoccrm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20CRM_v.7.1%20%5B8%20March%202021%5D.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  8. Clavaud, Florence, 2018. Semantizing and visualising archival metadata: the PIAAF French prototype online. May 4, https://www.ica.org/en/semantizing-and-visualising-archival-metadata-the-piaaf-french-prototype-online. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  9. Dubois, Alain, Nef, Andreas. 2017. The Matterhorn RDF Data Model: Implemeting OAIS and RiC in the context of semantic technologies. Presentation, http://www.alaarchivos.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/3.-Alain-Dubois-Andreas-Nef.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2021.
  10. Duff, Wendy, Stoyanova, Penka.1998. “Transforming the Crazy Quilt: Archival Displays from user’s point of view”. Archivaria, 45, 44-79 (1998), https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12224. Accessed April 13, 2021.
  11. Duranti, Luciana. 1992. “Origin and Development of the Concept of Archival Description”. Archivaria 35 (January), 47-54, https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/11884. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  12. Duranti, Luciana (compiler). 2016. Comments on “Records in Context”. InterPARES Trust, https://interparestrustblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/interparestrust_commentsonric_final2.pdf, Accessed April 6, 2021.
  13. Feliciati, Pierluigi. 2021. “Archives in a Graph. The Records in Contexts Ontology within the framework of standards and practices of Archival Description”. JLIS.it, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2021),
  14. http://dx.doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-12675. Accessed April 13, 2021.
  15. ICA (International Council on Archives) – EGAD (Experts Group on Archival Description). 2016, Records in Contexts. A conceptual model for archival description. Consultation Draft v0.1, September, https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/RiC-CM-0.1.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  16. ICA – EGAD. 2019a, Records in Contexts. A conceptual model for archival description. Consultation Draft v0.2 (preview), December, https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ric-cm-0.2_preview.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  17. ICA – EGAD. 2019b, Records in Contexts Ontology (ICA RiC-O) version 0.2, 2019-12-12, https://github.com/ICA-EGAD/RiC-O/blob/master/ontology/previous-versions/RiC-O_v0-1_release/
  18. RiC-O_v0-1.rdf. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  19. ICA – EGAD. 2021a, Records in Contexts Ontology (ICA RiC-O) version 0.2, 2021-02-12, https:// www.ica.org/standards/RiC/RiC-O_v0-2.html. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  20. ICA – EGAD. 2021b, Records in Contexts. A conceptual model for archival description. Consultation Draft v0.2, July, https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ric-cm-02_july2021_0.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2021.
  21. ICA - Committee on Descriptive Standards. 2000. ISAD(G): General International Standard for Archival Description, Second Edition. Ottawa, https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/CBPS_2000_Guidelines_ISAD%28G%29_Second-edition_EN.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  22. ICA - Committee on Descriptive Standards. 2003. ISAAR (CPF): International Standard Archival Authority Record For Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families. Second Edition, https://www.ica.org/
  23. en/isaar-cpf-international-standard-archival-authority-record-corporate-bodies-persons-and-families-2nd. Accessed April 8, 2021.
  24. IFLA – International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Cataloguing Section and Meetings of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code. 2017. Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP). https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2016-en.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2021.
  25. Lemieux, Victoria (ed.). 2016. Building Trust in Information. Perspectives on the Frontiers of Provenance. Springer International Publishing. Senza luoigo?
  26. Llanes-Padrón Dunia, Pastor-Sánchez Juan-Antonio. 2017. “Records in contexts: the road of archives to semantic interoperability”, Program, 51:4, 387-405, https://doi.org/10.1108/PROG-03-2017-0021. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  27. Library of Congress - PREMIS Editorial Committee. 2018. PREMIS 3 Ontology. https://id.loc.gov/ontologies/premis-3-0-0.html. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  28. Yakel, E.. 2003. “Impact of Internet-Based Discovery Tools on Use and Users of Archives”. Comma, 191-200 (2003).
  29. Mazzini, Silvia and Ricci, Francesca. 2011. “EAC-CPF Ontology and Linked Archival Data”, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives, September 29, 72-81, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-801/paper6.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  30. Michetti, Giovanni. 2020. “’Il mondo come puzzle’: i beni culturali nel web”. Digitalia, Anno XV, Numero 1 - Giugno 2020, 26-42, http://digitalia.sbn.it/article/view/2485. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  31. Riva Pat, Le Boeuf Patrick, Žumer Maja. 2017. IFLA Library Reference Model. A Conceptual Model for Bibliographic Information. https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr-lrm/ifla-lrm-august-2017_rev201712.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  32. SAA (Society of American Archivists) - Council Conference Call. 2018. Annual Report: Standards Committee and Technical Subcommittees, Appendix D, 30-44, https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/0118-CC-V-F-Standards.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2021.
  33. Tharani Karim. 2021. “Much more than a mere technology: A systematic review of Wikidata in libraries”. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 47, Issue 2, March 2021, 102326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102326. Accessed April 13, 2021.
  34. Vrandecic, Denny. 2013. “The rise of Wikidata”. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28(4), 90–95. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1109/MIS.2013.119. Accessed April 13, 2021.
  35. W3C. 2013. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology, Recommendation, April 30, http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/, Accessed April 6, 2021.