Print

Print


There is some punning involved with Persons in the bibliographic universe
that requires careful thought about the different individuals of different
types involved.

Matters are not helped by the fact that a lot of the time the different
things may have the same marc authority record.

1. There are actual people (eg. human beings*). These are capable of doing
things, like creating works, being Dons, or arguing on mailing lists.

An example is [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] , the man. The name** of this
entity is "Charles Lewis Dodgson".  The name of a person can change over
time.

2. There are literary identities. These are abstract things that bear
names, and to which responsibility for a work may be assigned. An identity
may be associated with one or more people.

The name of a literary identity may usually be the same as the name of the
person for whom it is an identity.
The name of a literary identity need not change when the name of the person
changes.

Examples are : [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson]' and [Lewis Carroll], which bear
the names "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson" and "Lewis Carroll" respectively. Both
identities were used by the man [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson]

These are the kind of things that are referred to in 100 fields.

3. There are entities which other things can be about. Let us call these
subjects. Some of these things can be about entities which are people;
others can be about entities which are Literary Identities.

Subjects are intentional (with a t). They are ideas about things. The
possible relationships between subjects are not the same as those between
the things they are about.

For example, topically subdivided headings can be about completely
different kinds of things to the undivided heading - a person's homes and
haunts are not themselves people, yet an implicit BT relationship exists.

A biography of [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] (the man) would be about the
subject [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson]''.

A bibliography of the Works of [Lewis Carroll],  the literary identity,
would be about the subject [Lewis Carroll]'. It might also be considered to
be about the subject [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson]''.

The names of these subjects would be "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson" and "Lewis
Carroll".

4. There are names, which are strings or things from which strings can be
generated. There can be several names associated with the types of things
identified above - names in direct order, inverted order, with dates, etc.

5. There are authorized names, which are names which some agency has
specified as being permitted for use in some dataset. An agency can only
specify one such name for each entity.

6.There are name authority records, which are collections of statements
uttered by some agency relating a preferred name to other names (along with
other statements).

Simon

* homocentric assumption made w.I.o.g for sake of simplicity.
** names given in uncontrolled, direct order for sake of simplicity

Simon

On Oct 24, 2014 8:55 AM, "Meehan, Thomas" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I like the increased clarity that Person etc represents the person rather
than the authority concept but wonder now whether the class Authority has
some ambiguity:
>
>
>
> -          the name/label Authority still suggests something like an
authority record for an entity rather than an entity as such.
>
> -          the definition of an Authority says “Representation of a key
concept or thing”, which to me doesn’t suggest the concept or thing itself.
Shouldn’t it be just “A key concept or thing”. Or perhaps just “A concept
or thing”.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Thomas Meehan
>
> Head of Current Cataloguing
>
> Library Services
>
> University College London
>
> Gower Street
>
> London WC1E 6BT
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: 24 October 2014 13:06
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] [Topic] Authority Subclasses
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Ray, Kevin,
>
>
>
> The revised description is better, but still ambiguous as to whether the
bf:Person *is* the person or is a record that *describes* the person.
>
>
>
> The definition implies that it is the person, the text below implies that
it's the record about the person.  It would be great to be explicit about
this.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rob Sanderson
>
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
>
> Digital Library Systems and Services
>
> Stanford, CA 94305