(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(General comments)
Line 45: Line 45:
-- Glennan (PCC) for NLM, 8/31/12
[[Category:Completed documents]] [[Category:6JSC]] [[Category:Constituency Proposals for November 2012 JSC Meeting]]

Latest revision as of 11:12, 26 July 2013

[edit] 6JSC/BL/4 Other designation associated with the person: Revision of RDA 9.0, 9.6.1 and 9.19.1


Please include in your comments:

  • Your name/liaison organization
  • Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

[edit] General comments

Text of proposal

The change to 9.0 is awkward. Why wouldn't "persons" already include "persons named in religious works"? What's the difference between "fictitious" and "legendary"? If we list all of the categories, shouldn't "spirit" be listed here? I would prefer to just add the "real non-human entities" to this instruction. How much does this part of the scope note need to reference terminology used later in the chapter?

I would have preferred to see the BL proposal for the Glossary definition of person. The statement under "change 1" cannot substitute for what is already there. Are they suggesting this as an additional sentence?

Under "change 2" are there any undesired consequences in changing this element from core to conditional core? (I can't think of any at the moment, but this is part of the change.)

In "change 6" is there really a change to (I don't see a difference at the moment....)

This proposal has the same need to update (2nd paragraph) for inclusive rule references as BL/3.

-- Glennan (PCC), 8/28/12

I think the scope of “non-human entity” is unclear. On first mention in RDA, I would prefer something more well-defined like “real individual non-human entities (such as individual animals, robots, or extraterrestrial beings) with declared or implied roles as creators or contributors” (somewhat more explicit than the current LCPS for 9.0)

-- Glennan (PCC), for Ed Jones, National University, 8/30/12

1. Practical issue 1. Assigning a qualifier to names in religious works would have to be neutral enough to satisfy those for whom the name represents a literal entity and those who do not. This would be a case where the qualifier used as a subject (a figure to be studied in the context of sacred scripture) might be considered unobjectionable but the same qualifier used with the name of a person thought to be capable of creating or contributing to a work (or so attributed) might have a different effect. Consider an edition of the Ten Commandments attributed to Moses.

2. Practical issue 2. Real non-human entities. Would this include computers and other objects that often seem human? I actually think a non-organic entity is less problematic. The issue with animals is that if we say they can be considered to be capable of creation or contribution to a work, in order to be real, we would need to differentiate and research a series of similar looking animals: Lassie or Rin-tin-tin given credit in a film are not necessarily the same real animal from film to film. For a person like Cary Grant, the assumption is that there is only one real Cary Grant, and that the actor identified as Cary Grant is the same existential person who appears from film to film, that if we write a book called “Cary Grant’s Movies,” we are talking about a single entity. This came up in a long thread on OLAC--I seem to recall this was brought up by Greta de Groat, but I can’t say for sure. Alternatively, if we consider Lassie to be a fictitious character credited as an actor but actually representing a number of real dogs, we would not have that problem, i.e. if we qualified Lassie with (Fictitious animal actor) rather than (Dog), then the issue would be resolved. Lassie (Dog) also raises the question whether dates are added if readily available.

3. On the other hand, a qualifier used for characters who are understood to be non-existent is helpful. If nothing else, it will somewhat reduce the number of situations where patrons conclude that librarians can’t tell the difference between a real person and a fictional character. (There was a similar rationale for adding death dates retroactively). It would get us in synch with LCSH without causing maintenance havoc. And, if Group 3 entities are supposed to apply to all Group 1 and Group 2 entities in the FRBR definition, avoiding conflicts with LCSH would be consistent with RDA principles. When we write or revise instructions for borderline entities, shouldn’t we be considering the effect on Group 3?

-- Glennan (PCC) for Steven Arakawa, Yale University 8/30/12

While we have no objections to the proposal, we were confused by the examples in Half the time the qualifier starts with a capital letter and the other half it does not. Was that deliberate? Does it matter?


Personal tools