It's funny that UNIMARC Authorities has a notion of a "primary entity" that is being named. If you look in the corresponding place in MARC 21 Authorities you find a tautology.
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:39 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Adrian Pohl has a very informative blog post about the use of identifiers in authorities, stimulated by his reading of Rob Sanderson's document:
> The use of authorities to represent "preferred name" strings (as opposed to representing identified *entities* who have a preferred display form for human usage) appears to be an American anomaly - at least among the libraries he mentions.
> One question we could ask ourselves, because we do have identifiers for the things described in authority records, is how feasible it would be to transform LC authorities to identify an entity rather than a string. Is this a few tweaks, a total re-do, or something in between? My gut feeling is that it would be a behind-the-scenes change that wouldn't affect cataloger usage. Does anyone else see it that way?
> I also wonder if we really must resign ourselves to using strings in our future data because "that's what's in the MARC records." There are authority control services that match the strings in bibliographic records to authority records in order to update the bibliographic data. That same process should be able to add authority identifiers to the bibliographic records for the same matches. In fact, there are vendors who will do this today. I'm sure that matching isn't 100%, but I suspect that having identifiers for name authorities in our bibliographic records is much less of an effort than converting our data and systems to BIBFRAME. It seems short-sighted not to begin this process today, before the death of MARC, rather than carrying the strings forward to a new bibliographic model.
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet