And meanwhile, the patron will think we have all gone crazy. Let's see.
The author is known as Mark Twain. Do you have any biographies on him. No,
but we have biographies on Samuel Clemens. Are they the same. Sure, trust
me.
Hello hon, did you get a biography on Mark Twain.
No, but I got one on Samuel Clemens
Next scene: Gnasing of teeth, throwing dishes.
Next scene: Marital counseling....etc.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:44 PM, John Attig <jx...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> The situation may be a bit less clear than Karen describes. It is not
> clear that the registry record represented by the URL will in fact identify
> a person. Currently it identifies the person known by a particular name; in
> other words, we tend to merge the concept of an entity and the name of the
> entity.
>
> In most of the discussions of FRBR implementation that I have heard, it is
> said that the record that represents the person (which most people are
> comfortable calling an authority record, but which some are calling
> something more generic; Tom Delsey suggested using "registry record" for
> records representing ANY of the FRBR entities) will include a preferred
> access point for the person. That makes the record less a representation of
> the entity (e.g. person) and more the representation of one name for that
> person.
>
> In some of my presentations, I have suggested that we should consider using
> both entity ("registry") records -- to represent the person -- and name
> authority records to represent one of the many possible access points
> representing the name of the person. This allows us to record -- and share
> -- the factual information that is not dependent on particular rules or
> interpretations of the facts, while also providing a record for a particular
> access point that could give the context in which that access point is
> appropriate -- e.g., the form established according to RDA rules by an
> agency in the United States and appropriate for U.S.-English-language
> users. Needless to say, the "name" records would all be linked through
> identifiers to the appropriate "person" record.
>
> I have not heard anyone else pick up on this idea, but I think it is
> definitely worth considering because (in my opinion) it is the only way that
> we can support the kind of identification of persons that Karen describes in
> her post.
>
> John Attig
> ALA Rep to the JSC
>
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
