On Wed, February 23, 2011 7:42 am, Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér wrote:
> I suddenly find myself uncertain as to the approach - I was looking > into some books by Gogol. > I found > http://openlibrary.org/books/OL8839145M/Nouvelles_de_Petersbourg - the > name was simply listed as "Gogol", which I changed to "NikolaÄ > Vasilʹevich Gogolʹ". While transliteration always leaves a bad taste in > my mouth, it is certainly more exact than what it was before. I am now > merging some various author variations of Gogol, but: Should some kind > of detail not reflect the particular spelling applied in the individual > book? "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." It seem to me that the notion of an "authoritative" name is so 19th century. What I would expect is an author record that permits an unlimited number of Also Known As's without any indication of preference (i.e. /every/ name is an alternate name). Every edition by this author MUST point to the author record without attempting to indicate a name preference. An edition MAY include a "statement of responsibility" which records the author's name as it appears on that particular edition. The statement of responsibility is not authoritative as to identity, but only a record of an historical artifact. I have no idea whether OL is actually structured this way, this is simply what my expectation would be. It is often hard to massage data appropriately in order to make it fit into what is obviously a card catalog model. _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
