 |
 |
Yes, Kevin, that's what I think, too. Maybe Persona would be better than Person. Ted Gemberling -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:16 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Excessive simplification / was: FRBR-LRM: "agent" as an entity Steve McDonald wrote: > Would you feel better if the Agent entity were named something else, > like Potential Agents? As currently defined in the draft, Agent is > not just things that are acting as agents. It is defined as all > things that _can_ act as agents. Just because something is identified > in the model as an Agent does not mean that it has ever acted as a > creator. I think what you are feeling is a reaction to the name of the entity rather than the definition. > That's the problem with names of concepts, sometimes. "Potential Agent" may still be inaccurate, and is still defining the entity in terms of an action or relationship, not what it actually is. I think a better term would be "Persona". That term is rather widely understood, is not inherently limited to human beings, and says nothing about agency. Many uses of the entities in this class would have nothing at all to do with agency, so whether or not something can act as an agent is irrelevant. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Libraries Northwestern University www.library.northwestern.edu [log in to unmask] 847.491.2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!