Karen Coyle said:
>The "entities" in a model like FRBR are just the "things" you are going
>to work with. For example, in AACR and MARC we have "names"; in the
>former they are headings (authors, added authors) ...
Such over simplification worries me, perhaps because models we have
seen of possible schema over simplify, e.g., calling "Autobiography"
the "subject" of an autobiography, when it is the genre; the "name" is
the subject, and was not given.
Personal "Names" do not just represent authors. They also represent
editors, translators, composers, artists, directors, actors, criminal
defendants, subjects, etc., etc., etc. And that's just personal
names. There are also corporate, government, ship, building, park,
and geographical names, to just begin an even longer list.
The makers of new wheels seem to assume a simplicity in the
bibliographical universe which does not in fact exist. I would like
to see a few "etc.'s" or "e.g.'s" scattered about in such statements
as the above.
On the larger question, it seems to a a few good work authority
records would take care of most of the needs expressed by FRBR. Let
multiver record concept rest in peace with a stake through its heart.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
