Print

Print


To echo Thomas, the term "Authority" can't escape the baggage of its
string-based history. Doing authority control means establishing the
"authorized" form of a name string. As long as we continue using this
terminology in a linked data context, won't there will always be ambiguity?
By definition, an "Authority" is a "representation," not the thing itself.
I don't see how we can have our cake and eat it too.

Wouldn't it be more coherent to just remove bf:Agent and its subclasses
from bf:Authority? A simple property like bf:hasAuthority could point us to
the "authorized" form of a name or label for the real-world entity.

Tim

--
Tim A. Thompson
Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
Princeton University Library
[log in to unmask]


On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>
> To try and bring the thread back to the subject ...
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:54 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
>> <http://bibframe.org/vocab/Authority.html> 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”.
>>
> Agreed.  If bf:Person is a real world person, then Authority should be "A
> concept of thing".  It must certainly not be a "Representation" of that,
> especially given the web semantics for "representation" (being the bytes
> received when dereferencing a resource via its URL).
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, Thomas, and look forwards to any responses.
>
> Rob
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>