Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for bibliographers

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:24 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >* The purpose of ORCID is to /uniquely/ identify individuals, both to
> >differentiate between people with similar names, and to unify works
> >where the author uses variant or changed names
>
> If you think that's a good idea, I don't see any reason to forbid
> people from including an ORCID along with the real contact info, but I
> would be extremely unhappy if the IETF were to mandate it or anything
> like it.
>
> My name turns out to be fairly common.  Over the years, I have been
> confused with a comp sci professor in Edinburgh, a psychology
> professor in Pittsburgh, another comp sci researcher in Georgia, a
> psychiatrist in Cambridge MA, a composer in Cambridge UK, a car buyer
> in Phoenix, and some random guy in Brooklyn, all of whom happen to be
> named John Levine.  Tough.  Not my problem.
>
> I also think that it's time for people to get over the "someone might
> spam me so I'm going to hide" nonsense.  The point of putting contact
> info in an RFC is so that people can contact you, and the most
> ubiquitous contact identifiers we have remain e-mail addresses.  I
> still use the same e-mail address I've had since 1993 (the one in the
> signature below), and my garden variety spam filters are quite able to
> keep it usable.  If I can do it, so can you.
>

+1

I discovered the ambiguity problem 30 years ago and began using the full
version of my family name to ensure uniqueness.

Since this has turned out to be ambiguous, I have decided to instead use a
SHA-256 hash of my DNA sequence:

9f00a4-9d1379-002a03-007184-905f6f-796534-06f9da-304b11-0f88d7-92192e-98b2




-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/