Quoting Lee Passey <[email protected]>:
>> As per my previous note, this is Group 2. > > Yeah, I knew this. I don't know why I got confused momentarily; perhaps it's > because it makes so much more sense to me to start with the authors before > moving to the work product. Yes, and they should have given them meaningful names! > But even if you limit the definition of the word "agent" to be > synonymous with > "actor" (e.g. one who acts), it really can't encompass those entities who are > "NotAPerson." The 911 Commission did not write the "911 Commission Report"; > one or more individual members of the Commission, or their staff, were the > true creators. The commission as a whole is /responsible/ for the document, > but it did not act to /create/ it. You can take that view, but the library cataloging view is that the corporate entity is the creator. So libraries would have no problem using Agent for corporate bodies. I realize that this is a stretch, but I've gotten used to it. >> The FRBR/FRAD "name" is a display form for human use. > > I'm not convinced of that. The FRBR Final Report says that the > Entity name "is > the word, character, or group of words and/or characters by which > the [Entity] > is known.... <snip> The reason why the name isn't useful as an identifier is that it can change. The name is a display form that, should the cataloging rules decide, could be replaced with another string. There are rules and reasons why this happens, but it is not a persistent identifier. Note that I have not yet gotten a good analysis of the relationship of the name and the identifier in FRAD, and I am wondering about the persistence of either or both for names of people and corporate bodies. > >> I'm not sure why you find that OL ids are neither unique nor >> immutable... perhaps you could explain? > > Perhaps it would have been more precise to say that OL ids are neither > exclusive nor persistant. <snip> > > Now, if we wanted to know the author of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" > (OL54321W) we would need to follow the redirection to OL12345W and would find > a reference to OL11111A (Samuel Clemens). OL22222A apparently is now an > orphaned record: while it refers to OL11111A as the master, no Work refers to > it. Thus I conclude that it is non-persistent. I admit I had trouble following all of this and hope that one of the OL programmers takes a look at it. My understanding is that the intention is that there not be any orphans, and creating orphans would be a bug. Would it make a difference to you if, instead of re-direction, the previous identifiers were included in the record itself? That is a technique used by some databases, such as OCLC. I don't think we'll get to a point that we aren't constantly merging records from different sources, so this identifier issue is one that we need to resolve in a useful fashion. Thanks, kc -- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
