Print

Print


Just one comment that corporate bodies aren't necessarily the same thing as
imprints or record labels or brands. Two kinds of entities--sometimes in
the same controlled vocabulary, sometimes not.

Thom Pease
Library of Congress
(just my own thoughts)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Svensson, Lars <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Kelley,
>
> Just some short notes (and questions) to one of your (very valid and
> interesting!) questions:
>
> > PLACES
> > Some time ago there was a discussion about recording the place of
> > publication. Places seem to me to be an example of the best case
> > for using URIs: there are comprehensive, externally-maintained
> > lists at the level of specificity required (generally cities for places
> of
> > publication). In most cases, it seems like just using a URI and
> > abandoning transcription for place of publication would be
> > functional. This wouldn't work for things like early printed books,
>
> This is probably true if there is only one place mentioned on the title
> page, but what do you do with something like "Berlin ; Heidelberg ; New
> York ; Hong Kong ; London ; Milan ; Paris ; Tokyo : Springer, 2004) [1]?
> Are all of those really places of publication? In that respect early
> printed books are easier, because a publication statement like "published
> by Georg Moony in the High Street and printed by P. Albert Murgatroyd in
> the Lower Crescent at the Sign of the Lantern" [2] definitely refers to
> people (who can have URIs) who had offices and workshops that are so
> locateable that you probably could supply GPS coordinates for them.
>
> > but for most contemporary materials, it would seem sufficient to
> > make a note if there were something unusual about the way the
> > name was presented on the resource (and does BF have a way to
> > connect notes to the elements that they are describing?). From a
> > practical perspective, the place of publication still needs to be based
> > on the resource rather than being a characteristic of the publisher.
> > Publishers move around and have offices in many places. Trying to
>
> Yes. Nonetheless I think that an authority file with publishers would be
> an excellent asset (it's just a specific case of corporate bodies...).
>
> > track who was based where and when would be a nightmare. Using
> > URIs would have the benefit of distinguishing London, England from
> > London, Ontario and London, Ohio.
>
> Yes, that is definitely an advantage!
>
> [1] http://d-nb.info/969977441
> [2] made up by me, but I hope it conveys the point...
>
> > NAMES
> > Names are another area where we will make use of URIs.
> > There are a great many more names than places and, although
> > there are multiple external sources of URIs, there is nothing
> > like the comprehensive coverage that is available for places.
> >
> > What happens if there isn't an existing URI for a name? There is
> > a cost to making a string into a useful thing and putting it in its
> > place in the universe. The cost is lessened by eliminating the
> > need to create a unique string, but it is not zero. Not everyone
> > will be able to contribute to shared lists like the LC National
> > Authority File. Not every name is worth the trouble of
> > disentangling.
>
> I guess this is a general case: What do I do when I want link to an
> authority file and the entity I want to link to isn't there (yet)?
>
> > Will people just coin a one-off URI using their own domain? How
> > reliable will these be? The advantage of this approach is that if
> > new information becomes available, it's easier to integrate. You
> > can just say that this locally-maintained URI represents the same
> > thing as this NAF identifier and not have to mess with the string.
> > If you start out with the assumption of separate until proven the
> > same, this might work reasonably well since it's easier to merge
> > than to split apart.
>
> It probably depends on how your library data ecosystem is designed. I
> could imagine that when your cataloguing system finds out that the entity
> you are looking for does not yet exist (neither in your system, nor in the
> central authority file) it creates a temporary entity in your system and
> enters that into a workflow to have it added to the central AF. Once it's
> there, it updates the references in your system.
>
> My two cent (€),
>
> Lars
>