Re: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF

Actually, these issues are also *incredibly* important when dealing
with archival description, which focuses heavily on the context in
which resources were created and used.

An excellent article that describes some aspects of this issue is
Chris Hurley's "Ambient Functions: Abandoned Children to Zoos"
(Archivaria 40, 1995) [0][1]. I quote:

[quote]
'We will probably agree that Wellington is properly described as
soldier and statesman and we may legitimately argue about whether he
can be described as "musician" but by no stretch can we, upon the
basis of our observation of the known facts, describe him as a
"ballet-dancer". There is a distinction to be made between three
allowable categorisations (soldier, statesman, musician) and the one
which is not possible on any interpretation (ballet-dancer).

This leaves room for argument about emphasis and perspective.
Melbourne's water authority began life as the "Board of Works". This
reflected an early perception that its primary functions did indeed
include engineering activities - at a time when water supply was
limited by the lack of dams and mains to store and deliver the
product. After a hundred years, with the mains laid and a system of
dams in place, the "works" side of its activity was less significant.
Then it changed its name from Board of Works to Melbourne Water."
[/quote]

I suggest also reviewing some of Daniel Pitti's articles on Encoded
Archival Context, which is inching toward  "linked data-friendliness"
(paraphrasing Daniel's words).


[0] PDF: http://journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/download/12095/13080
[1] HTML: http://infotech.monash.edu/research/groups/rcrg/publications/ambientf.html

Mark A. Matienzo
Digital Archivist, Manuscripts and Archives
Yale University Library



On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>
>> I can see this becoming unwieldy, however.
>>  person_123_who_was_walking_along_Main_Street_on_Saturday_July_7_2011
>>
>> It seems that there's a noun-verb struggle here. The person is the same
>> person, the activity is different. I know that some of these distinctions
>> are bound into our subject headings, but rather than change the identity of
>> the person I would prefer that we use the name in a context where possible.
>>
>> George Bush --> served as POTUS --> dates
>> George Bush --> author of --> autobiog
>>
>> It's the same person, but the activity of the person has changed, not his
>> identity.
>
> But as a subject, these make a bit of a difference (and, realistically, is
> where narrower terms come in) and you'd (potentially) want to be able to
> distinguish between them.
>
> A book written about the executive branch of the United States in the first
> decade of the 21st century probably should generate a significantly
> different graph than book about the ownership of the Texas Rangers (although
> there is, of course, one notable overlap).
>
> If the subject is significant (and distinct) enough, we should be able to
> specify it.  You're absolutely right, though, there is a limit to what's
> practical.
>
> -Ross.
>

Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 09:50:15 UTC