On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Andrew Gray <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 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 >> > 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. > That seems reasonable. Perhaps it would be worthwhile updating the property description for pseudonym to point people in the right direction so they don't make that mistake. Tom
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
