Print

Print


Stephen,

I agree that a nomen cannot exist on its own, but must always be tied to 
an entity. But I don't think that two nomens are distinguished from each 
other simply by the fact that they are tied to two different entities. 
That is to say, I do understand *your* reasoning, but I cannot find any 
evidence in LRM that they see it this way.

The definition of nomen is "a designation by which an entity is known" 
(p. 20). And in the scope note says: "A nomen is whatever appellation is 
used to refer to any entity found in the bibliographic universe. (...) 
Depending on context of use, the same sequence of symbols can be 
assigned as a nomen of different entities in the real world even within 
the same language (polysemy and homonymy). (...) The association of 
nomens to entities is in general many-to-many". To me, this means that 
the same nomen (the same appellation) can be used - and in fact, often 
is used - for several entities.

Also, if being associated with different entities would automatically 
make the nomens unique, FRBR-LRM wouldn't have to state on p. 49: "In 
general, the appellation relationship would be many-to-many, however, in 
the context of a particular library system, the intention is that each 
nomen is used in an unambiguous sense by being associated with a single 
res."

But it is rather frustrating that we need to do, as it were, "exegesis" 
of FRBR-LRM. Couldn't the authors simply have stated clearly what they 
mean? The area of nomens is really rather fuzzy in LRM, especially as it 
includes unique identifiers as well as (potentially non-unique) names.

Heidrun



> "An arbitrary sequence of signs is not a/nomen/ until it is assigned 
> to be an appellation for something in some context.  Only at this 
> point is it significant in the bibliographic universe.  The attributes 
> of the /nomen /entity actually characterize the relationship between 
> the /nomen/ and the thing (/res/) that is named." FRBR-LRM, Table 4.2, 
> LRM-E9)
>
> This stipulates that an unassigned string like "Smith, John" is not a 
> nomen until it is assigned as a nomen for a particular John Smith.  
> That assignment serves to individuate the nomen.  The fact that many 
> res entities might have the appellation "Smith, John" does not mean 
> that there is a single nomen assigned to multiple res.  Rather, each 
> nomen instance must be the appellation of a particular res (within a 
> given system).  The fact that they all look the same is not relevant 
> to the relationship each has with its res.  A name which is unassigned 
> is not a nomen, and identical nomens assigned to multiple res does not 
> imply the existence of an unassigned nomen entity, or a nomen 
> independent of any particular res.
>
> The difference between two nomens need not be categorical. Simply 
> being assigned as the appellations of two different res in the same 
> category is sufficient to differentiate the nomens.
>
> Stephen
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Heidrun Wiesenm├╝ller 
> <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Thomas,
>
>     I'm not worried about things like "780".
>
>     In the attributes list, there is "Category" for a Nomen (LRM-A25).
>     I assume that we could record "DDC number" as a category. Although
>     LRM  doesn't state this explicitly (at least I can't remember
>     having seen this in the document), I also assume that there
>     wouldn't be a conflict between two identical nomens if they belong
>     to different categories. So there wouldn't be a problem in having
>     780 as a DDC number and having other cases of "780", as long as
>     the categories are different.
>
>     Heidrun
>
>
>
>
>     On 27.03.2016 Thomas Berger wrote:
>>     Am 27.03.2016 um 11:32 schrieb Heidrun Wiesenm├╝ller:
>>>     Thomas said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>     I don't see your problem here, nomens are much more than names, labels
>>>>     or strings.
>>>     and
>>>
>>>>     See above: There are many nomens with identical labels.
>>>     I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all. As far as I understand LRM, a
>>>     nomen doesn't *have* a label, a nomen *is* a label (name, title, string,
>>>     identifier...).  Look at the examples on p. 21f., p. 38 and p. 49.
>>>
>>>     On p. 20, LRM says: "Depending on context of use, the same sequence of
>>>     symbols can be assigned as a nomen of different entities in the real
>>>     world even within the same language (polysemy and homonymy). Conversely,
>>>     the same entity can be referred to by any number of nomens (synonymy).
>>>     The association of nomens to entities is in general many-to-many."
>>     continuing
>>
>>     "An arbitrary sequence of signs is not a nomen until it is assigned to
>>     be an appellation for something in some context. Only at this point is
>>     it significant in the bibliographic universe.
>>     ***The attributes of the nomen entity actually characterize the
>>     relationship between the nomen and the thing (res) that is named.***"
>>     (emphasis mine).
>>
>>     one of the examples then is "780" (the DDC notation for "Music" as a
>>     concept). Obviously there are many other things that could be named
>>     "780", for instance the number 780. So there are many different
>>     entities associated with "780".
>>
>>
>>>     This sounds quite alright to me. But on p. 49, LRM says: "In general,
>>>     the appellation relationship would be many-to-many, however, in the
>>>     context of a particular library system, the intention is that each nomen
>>>     is used in an unambiguous sense by being associated with a single res."
>>>     So it seems to me that it would not be acceptable for LRM to have "Peter
>>>     Miller" as a nomen of two different persons.
>>     Indeed, and the prescription of the 1:m cardinality makes this
>>     perfectly clear (if there was only one nomen "780" it would be
>>     exclusively reserved to DDC usage in the bibliographic universe).
>>
>>     But it would be acceptable to have two different nomens colloquially
>>     called "Peter Miller" (but would these be nomens for nomens?)
>>
>>     I think your quote of page 20 is crucial:
>>
>>     "Depending on context of use, the same sequence of symbols can be
>>     assigned as a nomen of different entities in the real world even
>>     within the same language (polysemy and homonymy)"
>>
>>     leaves doubt an the question how many nomens are involved when
>>     e.g. there is one sequence of symbols and two different entities in
>>     the real world.
>>
>>     also (the next paragraph):
>>     "The identity of a nomen is given by the choice and order of the symbols
>>     used within it"
>>     could be interpreted that a nomen is uniquely identified (nomens of
>>     nomens again?) by the choice and order of the symbols used within it,
>>     i.e. there is only one nomen "780" in the universe. However in the
>>     light of the succeeding sentence discussing variations in ordering and
>>     variations in visual representation IMHO gives no occasion to back
>>     up this interpretation.
>>
>>     I think the following sentence from p. 20 might be misleading:
>>
>>     "The association of a nomen to the entity it represents is a cultural or
>>     linguistic convention, there is no inherent meaning embedded in the nomen."
>>
>>     could be interpreted as there were an abstract nomen "780" without
>>     meaning and then different contexts go on and start associating
>>     this with different res.
>>
>>     But I do not think this is admissible, it should be rather read as
>>     follows: The nomen is necessarily and unvariably tied to exactly one res
>>     (otherwise we could not consider it a nomen) but the meaning lies
>>     in this tying, not in the symbols used.
>>
>>     I could concede that FRBR-LRM is not clear about nomens, and both
>>     interpretations exist:
>>
>>     (1) There is only one nomen "780" in the universe
>>          => utterly unusable as a model
>>
>>     (2) There are (at least) as many nomen "780" in the universe as
>>          there are different entities named by "780"
>>          => might be of some value since these "individual" 780's
>>             can then be equipped with attributes describing the
>>             context of usage (a string "780" could not).
>>
>>     viele Gruesse
>>     Thomas Berger
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the  RDA-L discussion list.
>>     You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your subscription athttp://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l.
>>     To unsubscribe from this list, send an email [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L in the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>     -- 
>     ---------------------
>     Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>     Stuttgart Media University
>     Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
>     www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi <http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> Data Management & Access, University Libraries
> University of Minnesota
> 160 Wilson Library
> 309 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> Ph: 612-625-2328
> Fx: 612-625-3428
> ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242


-- 
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi