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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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]> 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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

   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