Weinheimer Jim wrote:
I think we're in agreement, but the main point I want to make is not to confuse "An entity needs a name!" (with which I agree) with "An entity needs a [single] name!' Today, this is no longer necessary and all of the variant names can be found, and displayed, in all kinds of ways.
This is also what the VIAF idea wants to achieve or support.
It's also important to realize that this is nothing new. Thomas Hyde's catalog of the Bodleian library from the 1600s appeared to work in a similar manner. Although I can't find a copy of his catalog online, his headings were remarkable in that they included all of the variant forms. I remember the heading for Peter Abelard was something like: Abaelardus, Petrus, seu, Abelard, Peter, Abeilard, Pierre, Abelardo, Pietro, [...].
Looking at the multitude of headings existing even for someone like Immanual Kant, that seems plain impracticable to me.
I can see something very similar with URIs. The "gathering point" will be the machine-readable URI, and the display of the heading[s] would be based on various factors. No. 1 would be based on the user's search, but the others could be based on IP address, user preferences, or who knows what else. Of course, the machine could be set to display only one or two lines and if this is not enough to display all the variants, then "[more...]" can be displayed.
Yes, but we cannot expect VIAF URIs to be available for everything anytime soon, and not for works anyhow.
This would demand some changes in our policies and procedures however. One example would be that each heading should have a language component, and there would be other changes as well. But it is important to realize that today, all forms can be "equal" and there is no need for "preferred form" anymore.
Although it can still be a big help. How does, for instance, Google Booksearch do its job of bringing together what belongs together? It has got nothing but textual strings to go by. Therefore, it will miss many references out there that use idiosyncratic forms of names and titles. I think we need more tools for interoperability than pie-in-the-sky URIs which are still very far from being ubiquitous and not likely to be used much in citations and quotations at all. I'm getting the impression, with all due respect, that you have yet to overcome a certain main entry phobia that was rampant some years ago and that was eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is still, let me repeat, very helpful and thus a Good Thing to have a clear and consistent name for as many entities as possible. As for RDA as it stands now, it would otherwise have to be rewritten in a major way. B.Eversberg
