Yes, Kevin, that's what I think, too. Maybe Persona would be better than Person.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Excessive simplification / was: FRBR-LRM: "agent" as an entity
Steve McDonald wrote:
> Would you feel better if the Agent entity were named something else,
> like Potential Agents? As currently defined in the draft, Agent is
> not just things that are acting as agents. It is defined as all
> things that _can_ act as agents. Just because something is identified
> in the model as an Agent does not mean that it has ever acted as a
> creator. I think what you are feeling is a reaction to the name of the entity rather than the definition.
> That's the problem with names of concepts, sometimes.
"Potential Agent" may still be inaccurate, and is still defining the entity in terms of an action or relationship, not what it actually is. I think a better term would be "Persona". That term is rather widely understood, is not inherently limited to human beings, and says nothing about agency. Many uses of the entities in this class would have nothing at all to do with agency, so whether or not something can act as an agent is irrelevant.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!