- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:58:09 +0000
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On 13/11/2012 15:28, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > > On 11/13/12 2:03 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: > >> >> 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, > > The US entry into VIAF is the Library of Congress Name Authority File. > Note the term "name" in there. And, BTW, ISNI has imported data from > VIAF, unchanged - do a lookup on Mark Twain. (Oddly, ISNI does not give > a URI... ) That is why I said "becoming synonymous with a person identifier" - we (as in the library world we) can set these things up with one purpose (managing name authorities) but the rest of the world will use them for their purposes (identifiers for people) and there is little we can do about it. > > Again I say that we need to either forget about real world objects or > allow them to be defined very broadly, such as "anything the human mind > can imagine." In terms of names, we are going to want to be able to > include Tweetie Bird, Buck Rogers, and Miss Piggy. It doesn't matter > whether you consider these *names* or *persons* -- they will need an > identifier for linked data. The next question is: is it practical to > separate the "real" from the "imagined"? This question is ontological, > in the original philosophical sense of "ontology" - the theory of nature > of reality. > It is not for 'us' to forget about real world objects. The schema.org schema defines People that have name(s). If we want to make use of their vocabulary we will have to accept it that way. > - What is the use case for making this distinction? and how does it fit > with existing data? > The distinction only really has value in discussions such as these: as we analyse the concepts and entities described in current bibliographic data, how they would be represented in a Schema.org world, how we would map them for publishing on our websites for search engine consumption, and if there are a few simple additions we could recommend to Schema to represent our concepts/data better in their view of the world. > - Do we think that people encoding bibliographical data will be able to > make this distinction? This is where recommendations/guidance from a group such as ours may help. ~Richard. > > kc > > > 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 2127includes '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 >> >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 15:59:16 UTC