Hi Liz

This is related to my message to the list recently. I think it is always better to have more structure, as its better for machine processing, so we would always identify the parts of a name. Whilst we are still using names in EAD <controlaccess>, it would be the same for EAC-CPF as far as we're concerned. 

You might have: David Lloyd George, which could be forenames David Lloyd and surname George, but we know its

forename: David
surname: Lloyd George

We're just in the process of trying to match our names to DBPedia, and have already done work matching them to VIAF - it helps to have this kind of structure….although matching to DBPedia is proving to be immensely difficult anyway! 

My blog post on name matching gives a bit more substance to this approach:

I know many archives are a not necessarily thinking about this kind of use of data, but it seems to me that providing the potential to do this is really worth considering. 


Jane Stevenson
The Archives Hub
Mimas, The University of Manchester
Devonshire House, Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9QH

email:[log in to unmask]
tel: 0161 275 6055

On 25 Oct 2013, at 11:39, Elizabeth H Dow <[log in to unmask]>

> I was reading through some notes from a course I took in 2009, and I found an observation by a former name-authority librarian to the effect that, in an authority record, a name, such as Henry Sheldon, 1827-1903, is a single <part>. The speaker then went on to comment that that EAC allows multiple <part>s for names for those who want to break up the name.  The new EAC Tag Library shows examples of <part> being used both ways:
> <part>Henry Sheldon, 1827-1903</part>
> <part>Henry</part> <part>Sheldon</part> (the Tag Library is down, and I don't remember how the dates were treated)
> Which use has the community come to regard as "Best Practice"?  Is there a consensus yet?
>   Wiz
> Elizabeth H. Dow, PhD.
> J. Franklin Bahyi Professor 
> School of Library and Information Science
> Louisiana State University