On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Lee Passey <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, when dealing with the FRBR model, I think it is very important /not/ to
> take "the library cataloging view." If we all know that an association cannot
> author a document then there is no reason we should continue to refer to that
> association as an 'author'.

Well, these discussions get interesting when we try to generalize
about what "we all know".

> entity." Additionally, my educational background is not in library science,
> but in the law, and I am quite certain that the definition of "Corporate Body"
> has no connotation of "any association of individuals regardless of legal
> status," and cannot be construed to encompass "any and all entities that are
> not persons." "Corporate Body" may be a term of art in Library Science, but
> there is no justification for perpetuating those kinds of legacy inaccuracies
> moving forward.

Sure it can be construed that way.  It is just as important not to
take a U.S. legal system view of the model either.

Innacuracies?  Snort.  If we're talking about what we all know, we all
know that legal status doesn't determine what people do, how they act,
how they write, and how they wish to abscribe responsibility and
credit.  People do things in groups, and the membership and
participation in the group can mutate over the duration of the work's
creation process.  This is a regular human activity, regardless of how
the group is labelled by its members or others.  Absurd legal fictions
like corporate personhood have little relevance to this common
process.

Terms like "corporate body" may have a different definition or
connotation in the legal sphere than in the library science sphere.
It probably has other connotations in other contexts also.  That
doesn't make it intrinsically wrong.  It just means it needs
definition for the context.

- Alan
_______________________________________________
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]

Reply via email to