Print

Print


That's what I was trying to confirm (and I still want to know if that's 
what Ray meant), but since we had just had a long discussion on whether 
we could use name authority URIs for RWOs I was hoping that there was 
some leaning toward "yes" to that question. If not then we don't have 
identifiers for people/corporatebodies/families (unless we create 
another property). Note that bf:Person is a subclass of bf:Agent, and 
bf:Agent is a subclass of bf:Authority. So in BIBFRAME, persons are 
authorities - and by Steve Folsom's given definition "bf:Person" means 
"a personal name authority entity."

Yet bf:Authority has this definition:
"Representation of a key concept or thing. Works and Instances, for 
example, have defined relationships to these concepts and things."

I read this definition as saying that bf:Authority is a representation 
of a RWO, not a representation of an authority entry/record. Concepts 
and things are RWOs, are they not? And to say that a work has a 
relationship to a concept or thing is not to say that it has a 
relationship to an authority. The authority doesn't have a role, the 
person/etc. has a role. An authority doesn't author or illustrate a book 
-- the person does. The only relation an authority has to a 
bibliographic description is that it defines the preferred label for the 
entity it describes. But the entity exists.

It just makes no sense to me to retain authority data as an entity, but 
if one absolutely must for some reason of carrying over MARC 
authorities, then a bf:Authority could represent the library cataloging 
authority record and its data, and some other classes and properties are 
needed for people, corporate bodies, families, places, etc.

kc


On 8/28/15 8:55 AM, Steven Folsom wrote:
> Because *<http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/1234> is an authority 
> about an agent, no an agent itself. *
> *
> *Forgive any typos, sent while on the run.
>
> On Aug 28, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Ray, can you explain why this doesn't work if the range of bf:agent 
>> is bf:Agent? Thanks, kc
>>
>> On 8/27/15 1:55 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
>>>
>>> *   bf:agent   <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/1234> *
>>>
>>> And again it depends on how/whether we define a range for bf:agent.  
>>> If we define the range to be class bf:Agent, then no, we cannot.  I 
>>> think most of us are inclined not to want to restrict the vocabulary 
>>> in this manner, and to allow such a contraction.
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask]  http://kcoyle.net
>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600