Dear Sadness,

In my attempt to wrap my mind around your point, I found this illuminating (if boring) paragraph about ISSNs (or International Standard Serial Number)at http://www.issn.org:

“As a standard numeric identification code, the ISSN is eminently suitable for computer use in fulfilling the need for file update and linkage, retrieval and transmittal of data. As a human readable code, the ISSN also results in accurate citing of serials by scholars, researchers, information scientists and librarians. In libraries, the ISSN is used for identifying titles, ordering and checking in, claiming serials, interlibrary-loan, union catalog reporting etc. ISSN is a fundamental tool for efficient document delivery. ISSN provides a useful and economical method of communication between publishers and suppliers, making trade distribution systems faster and more efficient, in particular through the use of bar-coding and EDI (electronic data interchange).”

My question is this: are you wishing for the journals retained in the databases to have an ISSN, and the database itself to have a separate identifier (an International Standard Database Number)? Maybe you could explain the utility of this a little more for us troglodytes.

Dependence on OCLC numbers is a bad road to follow. Remember, OCLC is like any open system – garbage in, garbage out. When I was cataloging, it was fairly routine to witness three (or more) separate records for a single title: one from the National Library of Medecine, for example, one from Library of Congress, one from the UK. Although most would hitch their wagon to the LoC record, what if they didn’t? A system like this only functions when there is one option – what if a book had four ISBNs and seven potential titles?

Isn’t it true, too, that these products have developed in a for-profit world of fierce, tooth-and-nail competition? Meaning, perhaps the developers of aggregators and databases don’t want to cooperate – they want to annihilate each other and be the single system that remains.

Dave, you are a bright one. I have been going around the office the last couple of weeks blathering on about the need for an “International Standard Database Number.” Your point about OCLC numbers, which I was not aware of, is important. The fact that they are not an identifier of a bibliographic item or work, but simply an identifier for a record among other OCLC records, further limits their use.

Your tooth-and-nail comments are right on, too. I would bet that without third party book and journal sellers, ISSNs and ISBNs would never have achieved the level of stability they enjoy today. It is only when you have situations in which you need to trade information about large collections of works that you would need these kinds of identifiers that are shared across competing interests…