Print

Print


Thomas,

Indeed I was looking for an alternative term for "Agent", not for "Res".

Admittedly, "Identity" has many meanings and is used in various 
contexts, as can be seen in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity

But the meaning intended in the context of FRBR-LRM (if my suggestion 
was adopted) could be clarified by the definition.

Have you got a better idea?

Heidrun



On 28.03.2016 Thomas Berger wrote:
> Am 28.03.2016 um 11:01 schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
>
>>> I don’t have a suggestion for what to name the over-arching entity;
>>> perhaps someone else can make a suggestion—or maybe it’s not necessary
>>> to simplify the model to this extent. I do recommend that the two
>>> narrower entities be called “individual” and “collective” or “group”
>>> (rather than “collective agent”).
>> I wonder whether "identity" could be used as an alternative to "agent"?
>> Of course I'm not a native speakter, but I think that this would be
>> broad enough to cover real and fictitious entities as well as human and
>> non-human ones.
> I'm not sure whether there exist an universally accepted definition
> of "identity", but ad hoc I'd say that anything with a name has
> identity (right then I will be able to integrate it into a discourse
> relating it to any other thing in the universe). So the "overarching
> concept" would fall together with "res", or with a bit of caution
> into that subclass of "res" for which "nomens" are established in the
> universe.
>
> It's fine with me that this also includes "level-1 entities", but I'm
> not sure if that has been intended by you.
>
> Stepping back a bit: The "agents" of FRBR-LRM are probably just a
> convencience translation of the "actors" in the lingo of the museum
> folks, i.e. anything that can "act" (lat. agere) should fall within
> that scope. I think we already settled on the fact that the ability
> to act is sufficient for membership in that class, not actual
> action. So since there are persons and corporate bodies which act,
> the classes should be considered subclasses of (let's temporarily
> stick with the name) agents.
>
> Some interesting corner cases here are
> * archeological specimens (Lucy, Pildown Man, Oetzi, ...) I remember
>    the German Personennormdatei for many years did not admit them,
>    they had to be stowed away as subject headings in the Schlagwort
>    normdatei. I don't remember the exact line of argument then, but
>    IMHO it had something to do with their non-relevance as persons
>    when alive (relevance to us, of course, not to their folks)
>
> * personae. In some areas of current pop music to my knowledge
>    almost everybody is expressing himself in form of "musical
>    projects" (formerly known as side-projects)
>    cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_the_Bass for that kind
>    of descriptive prose where anyone with "bibliographic"
>    mindset is just going to perish. The most concise characterization
>    seems to be "production orientated studio entity" but applies
>    only to the timespan before it became "a viable [...] band".
>
> [ LRM-E1 names "entities not specifically labelled" and I think
>    this would allow personae. However LRM-E6 states
> "The entity agent is a superclass strictly equivalent to the union
> of the entities person and collective agent"
>    and I deem this highly problematic, because "agents" on one
>    hand and "persons" and "collective bodies" on the other hand
>    all have definitions of their own. So the qote above is
>    a theorem which should be proven based on the definitions,
>    or it can be considered an axiom, which heavily determines
>    the shape and extend of the bibliographic universe.
> ]
>
> * Journals (especially newspapers) as collective bodies:
>    Section 5.6 of the FRBR-LRM report discusses the "commonality
>    of content" (I understand "the editorial characteristics")
>    expressing the intentions of the publisher and the editor.
>    Are these really persons in case of huge publications with
>    a correspondingly huge editorial staff or is rather "the
>    journal" also an organization committed to producing "the
>    journal"? I remember that when cataloguing correspondence
>    between authors and the journals they were publishing in
>    you usually cannot find the corporate body you need to
>    record - it's just "the journal". The Same happens when you
>    describe the archives of a journal.
>
> * Events as collective agents. This is not thematized in the
>    current report (I think) but in the original FRBR I perceived
>    it as a somehow very unclean trick: Events as (usually for
>    the formal description irrelevant) level 3 entities were
>    elevated to (considered as) corporate bodies, i.e. level 2
>    entities. In the context of FRBR-LRM there is no such
>    provision, we have to investigate if (and how) events
>    can be agents.
>    I /can/ see, say, the 62nd /Session/ of the UN General Assembly
>    (taking place from September 2007 to September 2008 in a
>    sequence of /meetings/), or the 114th United States Congress
>    (Jan. 2015 - Jan. 2017) as (temporally constrained) collective
>    bodies, but have a hard time imagining them as events.
>    On the other hand I personally have never been able to
>    mentally integrate the event-ness of an art exhibition
>    with the concept of a corporate body (especially in
>    consideration of the auxiliary means of some group of
>    people expressing their collective thought), rather the
>    bibliographic importance of an art exhibition lies in
>    a) the works on display and b) the curating work of the
>    staff and is usually almost completed (including publication
>    of the catalogue) when the "event" opens its gates (of course
>    the local TV station will report on the event as such, or
>    rather the vernissage as a individual sub-event, one will still
>    need some modelling to glue these together).
>    As a consequence either the exhibition as work has a work-work
>    relation (derived work) to the catalogue or accompanying
>    pamphlet, or (analguous to the journal case above) the
>    exhibition as a work has also aspects of a collective body
>    and as such is authoring or editing the publications.
>    I do not see any way in the context of FRBR-LRM to continue
>    the practice of handling general events as corporate bodies:
>    The event has a name, but the participants at events (like
>    a cinema show) are "acting as a unit" only in the very narrow
>    scope that participating in the event itself is acting as
>    participant of the event - but where is the unit here?
>
> FRBR-LRM does not make many statements as to mutual exclusivity.
> I could identify:
> * The W-E-M-I entities are mutually disjoint (mentioned in
>    LRM-E2,3,4,5)
> * "agent" is the disjoint union of "person" and "collective
>    agent" (I challenged that already)
>
> Specifically there is no prescription that the W-E-M-I
> entities are somehow disjoint from or of a different nature
> than all other entities in the universe.
>
> So, at least formally, events (only used as examples, not
> formally described), time-spans and places could be
> simultaneously W-E-M-I entities, and if not for the very
> narrow, "biologistic" definitions of persons and collective
> bodies, they could be W-E-M-I entities too: If we would
> open the gates for fictitious entities as agents (e.g. personae)
> and/or fictitious characters as persons (the biography of
> Sherlock Holmes probably is more complete than that of most
> real persons), then we'd have to deal with the creating
> circumstances of these fictions and on the level of the
> model will have to settle whether the inception of that
> fiction (a work) and the fictitious entity (a person or
> agent) should be considered one or two entities.
>
> with heretic greetings
> 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 at http://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l.
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to [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