Cases like this - where the pseudonym is a (collective) entity in itself - would seem to be a good case for "member of" relationships - Henri Cartan [is a member of] Nicholas Bourbaki as John Lennon [is a member of] the Beatles.
A free-text pseudonym for each of the Bourbaki authors would mean there's no easy way to connect them to that other element in future. Andrew. On Monday, 12 August 2013, Tom Morris wrote: > > Is it intentional to restrict the definition to personal pseudonyms? That > doesn't cover all uses of them For example, there are house pseudonyms > used by publishing houses which are associated with a series and the > publishing house contracts with writers to write effectively anonymously > (although it's often known who they are). > > Another example of a relatively well known collective pseudonym is > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki There's a whole category > of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_pseudonyms > > Tom > -- - Andrew Gray [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
