I guess I would say "catalogers" rather than "users" (without denying that catalogers are users too). I'm somewhat skeptical, thinking of myself as a non-cataloging user, that it would naturally occur to me to think of a meeting as a corporate body. I know that when I attend conferences I usually don't feel as though I'm participating in a collective unity that has a coherent identity :-) But I do have to schedule the event on my calendar.


On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Another way to put this is that users think of some meetings as corporate bodies.  Corporate bodies are typically agents. I read Rebecca Guenther's comment as more about how users would look for conference proceedings--as the product of a named corporate body--than about the catalog card format.

There is precedence for establishing two entity records for different aspects of the "same" thing.  Parks are defined in LCSH as geographic entities. Some documents present the park name as an issuing body.  In response, parallel authorities are created--the subject authority for the park as non-agent and a name authority for the park as agent, e.g., Everglades National Park (Fla.) and Everglades National Park (Agency : U.S.).  But my sense has been that this was more about the organizational "division of the world" at LC and the differing conventions for access points in LCSH and LCNAF than about a conceptual division in the minds of users.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Tim Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Ray, the problem centers on bf:Meeting. The argument being made (I think--others can correct me) is that a meeting/conference is really an Event and should be modeled as such, but that BIBFRAME (following traditions rooted in the conventions of the card catalog) continues to model meetings/conferences as Agents.


Tim A. Thompson
Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
Princeton University Library

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On Jan 21, 2016, at 4:58 AM, Meehan, Thomas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

That said, couldn’t Bibframe for example take the view that Event isn’t an Agent

This thread has gotten long enough that I am having trouble finding where this idea originated that Event is an Agent.  It isn’t.  I’ve said that a number of times: Event is not an Agent.  Making Event an Agent has never been contemplated.


Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242