Oops on the date. Nothing like commenting on documents that will appear 
in the future :-) -

(Draft Specification, 7 March 2014)

Well, I had the M and the 14 -- kc

On 4/23/14, 7:41 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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:Person>
>      <bf:authorizedAccessPoint>  Cutright, Paul Russell, 1897-</bf:authorizedAccessPoint>
>      <bf:label>Paul Russell Cutright</bf:label>
> </bf:Person>
> Thanks,
> kc
> [1]
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

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