Bob

 

As you would perhaps expect, I agree completely. Either the LRM definition of “Person” needs to be less restrictive, or agency needs to be expressed as a relationship rather than with the “Agent” superclass. The latter, in my view, is more semantically correct and also more effective. It’s much more useful to be able to assign an agency relationship to anything presented as an agent, rather than enumerate the things that could be agents – especially in the restrictive way that the LRM draft has it.

 

That way if a fictitious character or non-human animal is presented as an agent in relation to a work or expression, we can record that relationship (whether we call it authorship, or purported authorship).

 

This is akin to the way we might treat entities as subjects. The class describes what an entity is, but “agent” or “subject” is a relationship. Not a superclass.

 

Otherwise, the only way we can express the agency relationship of the Nomens of these entities to works or expressions, is by pretending they are really the Nomens of real humans who are associated with them in some way.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

“You’re very clever, young man, very clever. But it’s turtles all the way down.”                  

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: 29 March 2016 19:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] FRBR-LRM: The bibliographic universe and non-human and fictitious agents

 

Just to bring this back to my original point, details about what is or is not fictitious or how it should be labeled are moot in the LRM as proposed because anything other than so-called “real” persons (that is, those that exist in the “real” universe) are excluded from the category of person or agent. Being able to label instances of the person entity (or for that matter, corporate body or family) as “fictitious” or “legendary” or “deity” or whatever is great, but the model has to permit you to describe the instance in the first place before you can apply a label. Not recognizing the agency of non-human persons results in an inaccurate model of the bibliographic universe. In my opinion, this needs to be reversed before we can start talking about including an attribute such as “fictitious/legendary/real” in the entity description.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FRBR-LRM: The bibliographic universe and non-human and fictitious agents

 

The use case for labeling fictitious entities would be to enable users to exclude them from searches for real entities.  Someone searching for male authors living in London in the late 1800s might not want to find Dr. Watson in their results. Someone searching for women in Rome might not want to include the goddess Diana.The option of labeling Watson and Diana as fictitious entities (or with some such term and/or code) would resolve that. We have the option now to a degree, but the terminology used to indicate fictitiousness/irreality varies.

 

Whenever I play "Who am I?" one of the first questions asked is, "Are you real?" It's a primary sort for most people. Occasionally that question is hard to answer in the game, but mostly it's easy.  Without questioning the value of more fine grained philosophical analysis, I think we should generally categorize entities with games like "Who am I?" and "Twenty questions" as our model of inquiry.

 

Stephen

 

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Steven Folsom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

We need to be careful about what we call fictitious. Without getting too heady, who gets to say what is fictional? Every weekend I go for a walk in the woods with my daughters up Fairy Hike Mountain. I’m pretty sure that experience is real, but you won’t find any mention of it except for hand-drawn map in my dining room. Are places referred to in religious texts real? I don’t want our metadata taking those positions. What’s the use case? Are we really worried that someone will try to get a ticket to Narnia?

 

I think the safest/easiest thing we can do is to allow things to be things if we want to describe them similarly. A person can be a person and still be the alternate identity for another person. If we don’t know the person is really a pen name, then obviously we don’t say it. If we know they are a pen name, but we don’t have a lot of details on the person/s who write as that that person, we only say what we know. Using existing ontologies:

 

<Work1> dcterms:creator <Person1> .

 

<Person1> a foaf:Person ;

   rdau:P60037 <Person2> .

 

Note, that if a we said Person2 (the “real” person) created Work1 we wouldn’t be able to satisfy searches for things written by Benjamin Franklin as Alice Addertongue. We would only know generally  that Benjamin Franklin also wrote as Alice Addertongue. Also, if Person1 (the alternate identity) was only a Nomen, we couldn’t use the dcterms:creator property because it has a range of dcterms:Agent. Aligning data would become more complicated than it need be.

 

 

Re: Wrongful attributions, Something erroneously attributed to someone is different, and I would suggest we not have one way to say something is either wrongfully attributed, attributed to a fictional person, or both. We could extend the PROV qualifiedAttribution pattern (perhaps with a subclass) to say something was wrongfully attributed. 

 

For example:

 

<Work1> dcterms:creator <Person1> ;

   prov:qualifiedAttribution <Attribution1> .

 

<Person1> a foaf:Person ;

   rdau:P60037 <Person2> .

 

<Attribution1> a ex:WrongAttribution ;

   prov:agent <Person3> .

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, March 28, 2016 at 2:42 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] FRBR-LRM: The bibliographic universe and non-human and fictitious agents

 

The list of use cases isn't really about fictitious entities--it's about fictitious creator/contributor relationships, relationships which are asserted in bibliographic objects for various reasons but known to be false in real-world terms.  Some of them involve fictitious entities, but not all. 

 

A list of use cases for fictitious entities should certainly include subject use.  Presumably in FRBR-LRM, "subject" is not defined as an entity class because it is co-extensive with res ("LRM-R12, Work / has as subject / res").  

 

A separate question would be whether fictitiousness should be an attribute of res to identify fictitious entities.  I'd argue that it should be.  It can arguably be combined with any of the categories defined for res and its subentities, so defining it at the level of res makes sense.

 

Stephen

 

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

These suggestions are all great, but one of the biggest categories still not considered is a work about a fictitious character.  The most common example could be a work about a legendary character or about a god/goddess from mythology.  If the model includes fictitious entities, shouldn't it take into account these kinds of entities too?

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Kathie Coblentz <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 9:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FRBR-LRM: The bibliographic universe and non-human and fictitious agents

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 00:39:22 +0000, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>My working formulation is that one has an "attributed
>creator/contributor" relationship and the other has the
>current "real" creator/contributor relationship.  The range
>of attributed creator/ contributor relationships would not be
>limited to "real" entities, though it would include them.
>Some such formulation for expressing evident but not-real
>relationships  would be useful in a variety of cases:
>
>  *   A work attributed to a fictional entity
>  *   A work falsely attributed in the past and on some
>manifestations to a real entity
>  *   A work attributed to a real person but known to be
>ghostwritten by another person
>  *   A work attributed to a house pseudonym shared by
>many unrelated authors, but also known to be by a
>particular person.>

Good list, and I like David Proch?zka's suggestion to use "attributed name" in

these cases.

I would emend the second list item to read:
    *   A work falsely or erroneously attributed to a real entity

That would include cases where the real author has been identified as someone
other than the entity to whom the work has been attributed either on some
manifestations or in reference sources. Doesn't matter whether the work was
originally issued with this attribution, or anonymously.

And how about adding another item to the list?
    * A work attributed to a real non-human entity but known to be the
intellectual product of a human entity

This would include cases like the one discussed earlier on this (or another?)
forum of "Bo Obama," the presidential dog, who is a real dog but manifestly not
the entity responsible for "Bo confidential" (2009), the work for which his NAR
record was created. (Since the "as told to" entity in this case was "the editors
of MAD Magazine," it's a pretty good bet that the work was a satire, and not a
serious attempt to recreate the reality of Bo's daily life from the canine point
of view.)

It would also cover the case of Tuxedo Hess (lccn no2015080606), who I am sure
is a fine animal, an excellent grazer, and a very good galloper, but if truth be
told, not much of a storyteller, and not terribly eloquent in the English
language:

1000 Tuxedo Hess &#450;c (Horse)
372  Grazing &#450;a Galloping &#450;a Storytelling &#450;2 lcsh
377  eng
670  Tuxedo Hess (Horse). Tuxedo's tails [crossed out] tales, 2015: &#450;b title
page (written by Tuxedo Hess) page 4 of cover (a real rescue horse)

--------------------------------------------------------
Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger
Special Collections/Special Formats Processing
The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313
New York, NY  10018
[log in to unmask]

My opinions, not NYPL's



 

--

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



 

--

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


 
******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*****************************************************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Think before you print