View LISTSERV archives

IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


View:

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

IDM Home

IDM Home

IDM  June 2006

IDM June 2006

Subject:

Re: Person/Identity Matching

From:

"David L. Wasley" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Net@EDU Identity Management Working Group Discussion list

Date:

Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:51:44 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (75 lines)

Benn,  As Barry noted, identifying a record in one system as 
belonging to the same physical person as a record in a different 
system is difficult and often relies on heuristics and best guesses. 
In my experience, SSNs may be mistyped or "borrowed," names may be 
misspelled, changed (e.g. by marriage), or otherwise represented 
differently, addresses change, etc. and databases may contain few 
overlapping elements.  We were lucky to see an error rate of less 
than 1%.

My strong advice is to create a Person Registry as the authoritative 
source of basic personal information about every individual of any 
relevance to your campus.  If a physical person is not in the 
registry, s/he must be entered there before appearing in any other 
system.  Entry can be made by designated staff in any department or 
functional unit.  Ideally, any system developed in this century would 
simply link to this registry for information rather than creating a 
copy for itself but legacy apps could receive periodic downloads from 
it.

In this model, the only need for matching is when a person shows up 
and claims to be in the registry already, or when a cursory search 
produces one or more possible hits.  In that case, a human can 
interact with the person in question to disambiguate the reference. 
Of course, it helps if primary documents and images have been 
recorded for each person in the first place.

	David Wasley

-----
At 3:10 PM -0400 on 6/8/06, Benn Oshrin wrote:

>One of the issues we're about to (re)examine here is matching people 
>who come from multiple sources.
>
>A typical case is a student who we already know about from the 
>student system gets hired as a casual or work study employee, and we 
>want to make sure their information from the personnel system gets 
>attached to their existing identity rather than have a new (second) 
>identity created for them.
>
>We already perform weak matching that catches most cases, but we are 
>looking to signficantly improve our handling of these individuals. 
>We would prefer to get a better idea of what others are doing before 
>we make our plans, and so I'd like to throw out a few questions to 
>the list.
>
>1. Did you write your own matching algorithms or do you use a
>    vendor solution?
>
>2. If you wrote your own, what criteria do you match on?
>
>3. If you use a vendor solution
>    a. Which one do you use?
>    b. Is it a full vendor implementation, or do you just call
>       hooks from your own existing applications?
>    c. Who implemented your solution? (vendor, consultants, staff,
>       etc.)
>
>4. What has been your success rate with your implementation?
>
>5. What are your procedures for handling close/multiple potential
>    matches?
>
>6. What are your procedures for recovering incorrect matches?
>
>7. If not otherwise covered above, what are the interfaces to your
>    system? (manual data entry via web, batch feeds, real time api,
>    etc.)
>
>I will summarize off-list replies.
>
>Thanks,
>
>-Benn-

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Join or Leave IDM

Join or Leave IDM


Archives

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
December 2005
October 2005
September 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2