LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  August 2015

BIBFRAME August 2015

Subject:

Re: BIBFRAME Identifier, Role, and Authority Proposals

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:48:53 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (64 lines)

On 8/26/15 10:20 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> If the authority *describes* the person, why is that information 
> associated with the authority and not just with the person?  On the 
> other hand, if the authority is an existing identifier for the person, 
> rather than a description of them, then identifiedBy makes sense to 
> me.  The bf:Authority would play the same role as the bf:Identifier, 
> in that it's a resource which carries a string that has been used to 
> identify the subject of the triple.

Here's how I look at name authorities: name authorities (as their name 
implies) exist to establish the preferred label for a person, corporate 
body, or family. Before automation, the name authority entry was just 
another card, and was used during cataloging to determine the form of 
name (label) to include in the bibliographic description. Only the label 
existed to distinguish that entity from another. After automation, 
unfortunately, the label continued to be used to represent the entity; 
although authority records have identifiers, these are essentially 
invisible, unused except for record update. The down side of using the 
label to represent the entity is that labels can change, such that 
"Smith, John, 1932- " later becomes "Smith, John, 1932-2010", or "Boyle, 
T. Coraghessan" becomes "Boyle, T. C.". As an identifier, a label sucks. 
But conceptually, behind that label was indeed the identity for an 
entity of great importance for bibliographic control.

It makes sense to use the authority record ID as an identifier for the 
person(a) because it already exists, and it connects you to the 
authority record. However, authority records have very little 
information about the RWO because that never was their focus. For 
example, the birth and death dates function as disambiguation strings in 
the label display, and entities for which disambiguation was not needed 
do not have those dates (although lately that has not strictly been the 
case, which makes it all even murkier). Birth and death dates haven't 
been included as information about the person but as information added 
to the preferred label *where needed*. Other information, such as where 
the person was born, or when the company was founded, family 
relationships - these are logical bits of information that were never 
part of authority data because AC existed solely to create an 
unambiguous label string.

What I'm getting at is that the reason that we struggle with traditional 
authorities in RDF is that they do not have the qualities that an RDF 
graph about a person might have. We might use the existing name 
authorities record identifiers as URIs, but the thing that is today an 
authority record will not be adequate as a graph describing a person or 
corporate body. The other option is to leave name authorities alone and 
create an entire new set of identifiers (parallel, perhaps) that are 
representative of the entity, not just of the label.

I personally would like to see the concept of authorities progress from 
the determination of labels to actual information resources, of which 
labels are a part but not the only focus. Key, however, will be a 
cultural change that accepts the shift from label creation to entity 
description. This is the part that I think we are not yet agreed on, and 
IMO it is holding us back in our work to create a richer library data 
landscape.

kc

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
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
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager