In practice, it will be a string that is part of a uniform title ("Germany" in
the example below):
Catholic Church.
[Treaties, etc. Germany, 1933 July 20]
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Signatory to a treaty
Quoting John Attig <[email protected]>:
> "Signatory to a treaty, etc." is therefore one of several identifying
> elements necessary to distinguish between different treaties (works).
> This is independent of the role of the signatories as creators of the
> work. Note in the authority record example, that Australia and United
> States are also identified as creators -- and presumably, in a linked
> data environment, this would be encoded as a relationship to the
> corporate bodies.
So is it expected that "signatory to a treaty" will be represented by
an entity or a string? For example, would you expect a signatory to a
treaty to be retrieved by non-preferred (or earlier/later) forms of
the name?
Also, if a system could precoordinate the string using an entity and
relationship (thus having it appear as it must in RDA displays and
indexes) would that be acceptable?
kc
>
> The way in which RDA elements are combined into precoordinated access
> points is one of the features of RDA that does not fit terribly well
> into the linked-data environment that we are anticipating, but it is a
> critical component to how we currently control and provide access to
> the entities in question -- particularly in the case of works and
> expressions.
>
> John Attig
> Authority Control Librarian
> Penn State University
> [email protected]
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
