On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Lee Passey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, February 23, 2011 7:42 am, Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér wrote: > > It seem to me that the notion of an "authoritative" name is so 19th century.
Agreed. Old skool librarians are big on "authority" and "control" which doesn't really fit with the democratization of data. > What I would expect is an author record that permits an unlimited number of > Also Known As's without any indication of preference (i.e. /every/ name is an > alternate name). I think the direction to move is personal preference rather than no preference. There are many circumstances where due to either space constraints or other reasons, you want a single name, but rather than having some Library of Congress librarian choose the best name (which they might even do differently if they had it to do over again), tag the names with descriptive information and let me describe my preferences, then match the two sets of things together to choose the best default name for a given display. Is it a birth name, a pseudonym, the common form in language <foo>, etc? Perhaps I always want the author's birth name in their native language, or what they're known as in English, or the pseudonym under which they published the most books or ...? I agree the centralized authority model is antiquated, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Tom _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
