I have a few brief comments on the May 14 authorities proposal update:

1) the naming of "hasAuthority" and then "referenceAuthority" seems 
inconsistent because one uses "has" and the other does not, yet they are 
conceptually similar. Most of BIBFRAME does not use the "hasX" name 
form. [1] "Authority" alone seems understandable.

2) there is no mention of authorities in multiple languages. It seems 
that this needs to follow the SKOS convention of a single "prefLabel" 
*per language*. This could translate either to more than one authorized 
access point, or more than one hasAuthority.

3) for works as subjects, the assumption is that there will always be a 
URI for the work. RDA allows a work to be described either with an 
identifier or a citation. It does seem that there will be cases in which 
there is no URI for the work as subject. Perhaps an example could show 
how to do this?

4) I note that in your examples, at no point are the BIBFRAME 
authorities given "typeOf" BIBFRAME authority. In essence, they have 
become nodes that can be of type Person, Work, Place, etc. Whether or 
not they are "authoritative" will depend on whether an authority is 
referenced in the node. Is this your intention?

5) Could there be both an authorizedAccessPoint and a label in the same 
node? e.g.

     <bf:authorizedAccessPoint>  Cutright, Paul Russell, 1897-</bf:authorizedAccessPoint>
     <bf:label>Paul Russell Cutright</bf:label>



Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet