As I understand current person authority records, there is no
information specific to a work or manifestation in there---except to
note the _source_ of the other information found. But all information in
a person authority record is about the person in general, not about a
particular work or
At 07:40 PM 6/2/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
This is certainly how I've seen people talk about this sort of thing
before, assuming that the person entity _is_ the evolution of the person
authority record, and thus considered some form of authority record.
I haven't really
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
As I understand current person authority records, there is no
information specific to a work or manifestation in there---except to
note the _source_ of the other information found. But all information in
a person authority record is about the person in general, not about
John Attig wrote:
I have argued elsewhere that there is an important distinction between
an entity record for a person, family, or corporate body -- which
represents the person, etc. -- and an authority record for the NAME of
the person, etc.
Actually my big concern is that the entity Person
At 01:41 PM 6/3/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
John Attig wrote:
I have argued elsewhere that there is an important distinction
between an entity record for a person, family, or corporate body --
which represents the person, etc. -- and an authority record for
the NAME of the person, etc.
Actually
From your conversation with Karen Coyle:
I am not sure, though, that we want a record that ONLY addresses the
name choice issue.
And I don't see how we can avoid it . . . unless we with to abandon the need
to control the textual form of name.
Very well put. I hope your words are heeded as the
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
[John Attig] Regarding Karen's second paragraph above, I believe that the
person
entity is intended to be universal, but the attributes
Robert Maxwell wrote:
[R Maxwell] I do not agree that authority records in some form will still be
needed in a FRBR-ized catalog. If each entity has one and only one entity
record in the database, then that one entity record serves all the purposes of
the current authority records. When
At 04:30 PM 6/2/2008, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Robert Maxwell wrote:
[R Maxwell] I do not agree that authority records in some form will still
be needed in a FRBR-ized catalog. If each entity has one and only one
entity record in the database, then that one entity record serves all the
purposes
Jonathan Rochkind and Kevin Randall are correct. I was simply not
thinking clearly.
Laurence S. Creider
On Mon, June 2, 2008 3:30 pm, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Robert Maxwell wrote:
[R Maxwell] I do not agree that authority records in some form will
still be needed in a FRBR-ized catalog. If
I think that I understand what Bob Maxwell is saying, and I agree with him
that 4.1 and 4.2 could be construed to mean that only manifestation-level
records should be made. A statement to the effect that other levels of
the FRBR hierarchy should or could be represented in catalogs would be a
good
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
This is certainly how I've seen people talk about this sort of thing
before, assuming that the person entity _is_ the evolution of the person
authority record, and thus considered some form of authority record.
I haven't really thought this through far enough, but
12 matches
Mail list logo
