The shifting of fictional persons into the NAF is called into question by the firm stand of the FRBR-LRM report that fictional entities should not be represented as agents. In earlier posts I pondered whether a relationship like "Atributed to" might be defined as a creator/contributor relationship with a wider range than the one FRBR-LRM proposes for creator/contributor relationships involving agents. The use case in mind is the many Sherlock Holmes books in our collection attributed on the title page to "Dr. John H. Watson."

There may be another way to resolve this conflict between how we tag and how we use entity names. The "Attributed to" relationship might be defined as a type of subject relationship, in that it conveys a fact about the resource which is not truly a fact about its creation. Subject is an ever widening umbrella which (in MARC) has begun to acquire specific relationship terms and codes. Maybe it could also provide shelter for "Attributed to".  

In that case, we might tag fictional person, corporate body, and place entities in the NAF using 100, 110, and 151 rather than 150 in LCSH, and in MARC authorities code these headings as 008/14=b, "not appropriate for use as a main or added entry."  We'd be refining the scope of NAF and SAF away from use and toward entity types, which could be an easier division to grasp for users of the files and the AAPs.

Stephen



On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Netanel Ganin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
[Resending from 9/30 because I think this got trapped in the aether]

G'morning PCC-ers (and a warm Shanah Tovah to fellow Hebes)

I stumbled across this document at the CC:DA site http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/?p=1236 on fictitious families and corporate bodies. I was quite pleased to see it, as I've oft wondered why entities such as 


Enterprise (Imaginary space vehicle) 
Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry (Imaginary organization) 

were in LCSH rather than the NAF (in parellel with RDA's treatment of fictional people)

I was unable (and am fully ready to chalk this up to bad navigational skills) to find a response on the RSC site to this proposal. Does anyone have any insight into what was the result of this proposal?

2. Follow up -- has there been a proposal (or immediate rejection of such) for fictional places such as 

Oz (Imaginary place) 
Never-Never Land (Imaginary place)

to be entered into the NAF rather than LCSH?


best,

Netanel Ganin
------------------------------------------------------------
Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University

My pronouns are he/him/his




--
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