[RDA-L] The Person entity [was: Comments from Martha M. Yee ... 1 of 2]
-Original Message- Karen Coyle wrote: Actually my big concern is that the entity Person may make sense as a subject but we don't have persons as creators, only personal names. That name may be a pseudonym used by two actual human beings, or there could be many names associated with one person. So the Person entity doesn't seem to fit well into our cataloging world view in the creator/agent role. - [Myers]: I will confess I am having difficulty understanding Karen's concerns. Bibliographically, we have historically had only headings and cross references in our catalogs, which were then supported by authority files in card or MARC format. The Person has only existed in the bibliographic sense and context, whether creating under an identity that matched their personal identity or under a pseudonymous or conjoined identity. The entity structure of FRBR-FRAD and RDA in a scenario 1 implementation takes this to a new level of generalization and integration but doesn't seem to commit great violence to that cataloging world view. To my thinking, each manifestation will have a statement of responsibility as an attribute, recorded in the manifestation entity record. Based on that attribute, the manifestation entity record will link to the corresponding personal (corporate, conference) entity record(s). Those Group 2 entity records will record as their attributes the various relevant data elements. Depending on the implementation scenario, headings will be hard coded in the Group 2 entity record or machine generated from those elements (that is, we will record the strings formerly known as headings into the entity record or the machine will construct them on-the-fly when creating displays). Does this illuminate the situation, represent erroneous thinking, or lack applicability to the discussion? John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] The Person entity [was: Comments from Martha M. Yee ... 1 of 2]
Myers, John F. wrote: To my thinking, each manifestation will have a statement of responsibility as an attribute, recorded in the manifestation entity record. Based on that attribute, the manifestation entity record will link to the corresponding personal (corporate, conference) entity record(s). Those Group 2 entity records will record as their attributes the various relevant data elements. And your definition of person will determine what these relevant data elements are, and what you can do with this data. If you your persons are bibliographic entities then they can't interact with data about real persons (LDAP databases, the copyright renewal database, the social security death index, etc.) unless somewhere a clear connection is made between the bibliographic and the non-bibliographic identities. This is why I am concerned about limiting ourselves just to name forms - it limits what we can do with our data. Perhaps Person is the wrong term for this entity and the name should reflect its nature as a bibliographic concept. Then again, we still have to deal with the actual person as subject case. People do write biographies about the real people behind the bibliographic identities. I don't think this is the same entity as the bibliographic persona yet we are using the same entity for both. This is probably where my dis-ease comes in. kc -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] The Person entity [was: Comments from Martha M. Yee ... 1 of 2]
-Original Message- Karen Coyle wrote: And your definition of person will determine what these relevant data elements are, and what you can do with this data. If you your persons are bibliographic entities then they can't interact with data about real persons (LDAP databases, the copyright renewal database, the social security death index, etc.) unless somewhere a clear connection is made between the bibliographic and the non-bibliographic identities. This is why I am concerned about limiting ourselves just to name forms - it limits what we can do with our data. Perhaps Person is the wrong term for this entity and the name should reflect its nature as a bibliographic concept. Then again, we still have to deal with the actual person as subject case. People do write biographies about the real people behind the bibliographic identities. I don't think this is the same entity as the bibliographic persona yet we are using the same entity for both. This is probably where my dis-ease comes in. - [Myers]: I guess I am relying on FRAD to identify the attributes of the person entity and RDA to spell them out as data elements. Further, I think that Chapter 30 of the December 2007 RDA draft would address concerns about the relationship between the bibliographic and non-bibliographic entities. The scope note at 30.1.0.1.2 says, Related persons include separate identities for the same individual. So there would be entity records, for instance, for both Lewis Carroll and Charles L. Dodgson, with a relationship between the entity represented by the pseudonym and the entity represented by the legal name. As we transition from a cataloging environment and cataloging rules that were primarily focused on heading construction to this new entity-relationship model and supporting code, there does seem to be a focus on name forms in the rules, and an inelegant one at that, if I may be so bold. However, there are other important attributes that are now being addressed formally, in terms of the record content, for the first time. There have been discussions, much better expressed than I can convey here, as to whether the heading/name form is properly an attribute of the entity or just a (possibly) unique agglomeration of selected attributes. It is my hope that the JSC will provide both for some clarifying revisions to Chapter 9 and resolving the place of the identifying heading within the entity record framework. Fervently hoping we are not talking to cross purposes, John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] The Person entity [was: Comments from Martha M. Yee ... 1 of 2]
At 12:02 PM 6/4/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: And your definition of person will determine what these relevant data elements are, and what you can do with this data. If you your persons are bibliographic entities then they can't interact with data about real persons (LDAP databases, the copyright renewal database, the social security death index, etc.) unless somewhere a clear connection is made between the bibliographic and the non-bibliographic identities. This is why I am concerned about limiting ourselves just to name forms - it limits what we can do with our data. Perhaps Person is the wrong term for this entity and the name should reflect its nature as a bibliographic concept. Then again, we still have to deal with the actual person as subject case. People do write biographies about the real people behind the bibliographic identities. I don't think this is the same entity as the bibliographic persona yet we are using the same entity for both. This is probably where my dis-ease comes in. I now see what you are trying to say about Person. Yes, Person is a bibliographic entity which may not have a one-to-one relationship with an actual person. And I would note that your exception for subjects is probably not warranted: a bibliographic identity can be the subject of a work, just as much as an actual biological person. However, I would note that in 99.9% of the cases, the bibliographic identity and the biological person are identical. I would hate to torture the model in order to deal with that 0.1% that raise problems. Perhaps what we need is an element (data about data) that signals when the entity represents only the bibliographic identity and should therefore not be assumed to map to person entities in other data sources. John
Re: [RDA-L] The Person entity [was: Comments from Martha M. Yee ... 1 of 2]
-Original Message- From: John Attig [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:39:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The Person entity [was: Comments from Martha M. Yee ... 1 of 2] However, I would note that in 99.9% of the cases, the bibliographic identity and the biological person are identical. I would hate to torture the model in order to deal with that 0.1% that raise problems. Perhaps what we need is an element (data about data) that signals when the entity represents only the bibliographic identity and should therefore not be assumed to map to person entities in other data sources. I am not so sure that only 0.1% cases are problematic in libraryland. a) IMHO several authors creating a work form a bibliographic identity [BI]: Many will agree that Ellery Queen is a BI. If so, Ilf and Petrov form a BI too (even if they use 2 names). If so, The Cohen Brothers form a BI. If so, Nicolas Bourbaki ... If so, Rolling Stones form a BI ? When we start to call them 'corporate bodies' ? If 3 persons or more ? :-) b) IMHO, a person not speaking/writing (exactlly) for herself/himself forms a BI. E.g. Bill Clinton as Governor of Arkansas; Bill Clinton as Democrat presidential candidate; Bill Clinton as President of US. However (as a computer person) I do not see big difficulties to handle such complex BIs in practical bibliographic data models. John Dan Matei --- Dan Matei, director CIMEC - Institutul de Memorie Culturala [Institute for Cultural Memory] Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90 013701 Bucuresti [Bucharest], Romania tel. (+40-21) 317 90 72; fax (+40-21) 317 90 64 www.cimec.ro
