I have a few brief comments on the May 14 authorities proposal
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.  "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>
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net