Re: Itemprop for person

This is where this group may have more to do than just come to a consensus
around extensions to the schema.org vocabulary.  We may have a role in
providing guidance in what elements of rich bibliographic data, from Marc
for instance, can and can not be represented using [extended] Schema.org
Plus provide examples on how they could be mapped.

In the 'mostly good enough' world of the web (as being described using
Schema.org), it is people and organisations that they are trying to describe
– they are not so focussed on ‘names’ as we are.   This has the effect of
merging your three levels to something that is probably a combination of
person and persona.

How VIAF and ISNI are, or should be, used is an interesting question. A VIAF
URI is becoming synonymous with a person identifier by those outside (and
possibly inside) the library world, where as an ISNI (the clue is in the
name) I get the impression is more ‘name’ oriented – or is that because it
is not widely know yet beyond circles that have operated with a name view of
the world for years?

~Richard.



On 12/11/2012 16:45, "Graham Bell" <graham@editeur.org> wrote:

> Karen, Richard
> 
> But increasingly, with adoption of VIAF and ISNI identifiers for names, I
> guess the library world will be able to differentiate between 'real' names and
> pseudonyms.
> 
> For example, Agatha Christie (ISNI 0000 0001 2102 2127) and Mary Westmacott
> (ISNI 0000 0003 6613 0900) are different public identities (or personal names)
> for the same person. The two identifiers are linked within the ISNI registry,
> and the latter is clearly marked as a pseudonym. Note also that the ISNI 0000
> 0001 2102 2127 includes 'Agatha Christie', 'Agatha Mallowan', 'Агата Кристи',
> 'Agatha Miller', 'アガサ・クリスティ' and a bunch of other variations, since these
> are all names for the same public identity -- whereas 'Mary Westmacott' is a
> separate public identity. And although Agatha Christie and Mary Westmacott are
> linked, this isn't always the case (see for example ISNIs 0000 0000 7320 7425
> and 0000 0000 4340 7282).
> 
> So you can say that there are three levels to distinguish:
> -- the person
> -- the public identity (or 'persona')
> -- the exact detail of the name
> Book metadata generally identifies only the public identity of the author (via
> one or more variations of author name listed in an authority file), and there
> isn't really a formal link to the real world object -- the person -- at all
> (except perhaps a private one in the contracts or the royalties system of the
> publisher). Indeed, sometimes, the lack of this link between the real-world
> person and the public identity (or between two public identities) is critical.
> 
> If there are links between person and public identity, they are at least
> optionally one way or private.
> 
> This three-level model also helps clarify the 'two authors writing under a
> single name'. Multiple real people have (often private) relationships with a
> public identity like 'Franklin W. Dixon'.
> 
> It may seem 'mostly good enough' to assume an author is either a person or an
> organization, but it might be hiding some important issues.
> 
> Graham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Graham Bell
> EDItEUR
> 
> Tel: +44 20 7503 6418
> Mob: +44 7887 754958
> 
> EDItEUR Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no
> 2994705. Registered Office: United House, North Road, London N7 9DP, UK.
> Website: http://www.editeur.org
> 
> 
> 
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:27, Richard Wallis wrote:
> 
>> The thing we need to take into account when using something like Schema.org
>> <http://Schema.org/>
>> is that they use classes to describe real world Things, such as people -
>> their names, and possibly pseudonyms, being just properties of that Person.
> 
> 
> 
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:07, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/12/12 8:31 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Two authors writing under a single name has me stumped at the moment,
>>> and I think we would have difficulty in convincing the Schema.org
>>> <http://Schema.org>  folks
>>> to make changes to cope with such an edge case.  Perhaps we should
>>> default to describing them as a Person with an explanatory note as a
>>> description (not liking that I have just said that.)
>> 
>> Richard, I don't think that the library data that we have today
>> distinguishes between "real" names and pseudonyms. I see nothing in the
>> authority record that encodes this either. So what we have is "personal
>> names" (and it's not "person" it's "personal name"), corporate names,
>> family names, and each of these can either be an Agent (1XX, 7XX, 8XX)
>> or a subject (6XX). That's it, at least in the MARC world. It would be
>> interesting to hear from a wider international group if there are
>> library standards that include more information about the relationship
>> between the name and a Real World Object.
>> 
>> kc
>> 
> 
>