Is URI to Wikipedia an example of this.
Not 100% authoritative but has a lot of stuff not in today’s authority files.
Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure
On 5/14/13 2:34 PM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
what istranscribed may not represent a corporation but an imprint -- which isessentially a product line. (Think "iPod" vs. "Apple".) As an example,Vintage Books  was an imprint of Knopf but now is an imprint ofRandom House.-- True, but the main idea under consideration is finding a way to accommodate the transcription of this information while simultaneously associating that transcribed entry with a controlled entity.
Yes, as long as it is expected that the "controlled entity" is not controlled by the cataloging rules nor the authority file. Various systems have made use of publisher statements, sometimes in combination with the ISBN publisher numbers, but I would normally see this as outside of what cataloging calls "authority control." I believe that in many areas we will be trying to develop more precise linkages to what today is textual data, but we shouldn't confuse that with "authority control". Those are definitely different things.
FWIW, Vintage Books is taken care of , though it does not record all the corporate history you noted. Yours, Kevin
That is in the authority file because Vintage is the "author" of a series.
|a Burns, James MacGregor. |t American experiment (Vintage Books (Firm)) ; |v v. 1.
It's a fairly unusual case, and I'm not sure that it's a common practice. Most publishers' series do not get such entries. I'd consider this one a fluke.
-----Original Message-----From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen CoyleSent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:04 PMSubject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Authority - publisher as authority
This is a note on the attempts to treat "publisher" as a corporate bodyrather than or in addition to a transcribed string -- what istranscribed may not represent a corporation but an imprint -- which isessentially a product line. (Think "iPod" vs. "Apple".) As an example,Vintage Books  was an imprint of Knopf but now is an imprint ofRandom House. It has, to my knowledge, never been a corporate entity onits own. This is an issue that will be devilish to solve, somethingalong the lines of title changes in serial publications, and perhapsone that should be deferred at the moment? (Note that there are timeswhen the publisher prefix of the ISBN is a better indicator of acorporate body than the title page, but, oh boy, the vagaries aroundISBN use are a whole 'nother complication!)
kcOn 5/10/13 2:38 PM, McCallum, Sally wrote:Here is another part of the BIBFRAME pie to stimulate discussion andquestions for the community to consider, On BIBFRAME Authority. Thisissue paper concerns the Authorities concept in the BIBFRAME modelpaper. This paper clarifies what the model document says about theAuthority part of the model and invites discussion.
Again it is helpful if when discussing this paper, you name yourlistserv comment with the topic plus an extra title to bind threads,e.g., "authority--main point".
Looking forward to your comments, Sally
**************************Sally H. McCallumChief, Network Development and Standards Office Library ofCongress, 101 Independence Ave., SE Washington, DC 20540 USA[log in to unmask] Tel. 1-202-707-5119 -- Fax 1-202-707-0115**************************
--Karen Coyleph: 1-510-540-7596m: 1-510-435-8234skype: kcoylenet