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.
On 27.03.2016 Thomas Berger wrote:
Am 27.03.2016 um 11:32 schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:Thomas said:I don't see your problem here, nomens are much more than names, labels or strings.andSee 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 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