Date:         Sun, 4 May 2003 17:42:18 -0400
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      back to names
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

I just realized I never received the below reply of Rebecca's, which I
just found in the list archive.

Anyway, this issue is, of course, a pre-cursor of the more recent
discussion, so I'm not sure if thinking on this has changed as well.
Mine hasn't though :-)

I realize there are these rules, but I just think they're wrong.  By
this logic (in other words, if we want to be consistent), shouldn't we
also have the following as valid, even though it's highly suspect and
presents all kinds of processing problems?

<name type="personal">
<namePart>Doe, John (person)</namePart>
</name>

Or even worse:

<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Doe (person)</namePart>
<namePart type="given">John (person)</namePart>
</name>

Is the solution you came up with for the GMD data, Rebecca -- in which
you map the additional metadata where it better belongs so that it can
be reconstructed -- applicable for names as well?

Bruce

> This is not a holdover from MARC, but is the way you would establish
> this
> name according to Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. It is the controlled
> form that would be found in the national name authority file; one could
> also include authority="naf" if encoding this way to be more explicit
> about this. You could certainly include as you suggest below without
> the
> (Musical group) and consider it an uncontrolled form of name.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> > Looking through the example records, I see this:
> >
> >      <name type="corporate">
> >        <namePart>Roustabouts (Musical group)</namePart>
> >        <role>
> >          <code>prf</code>
> >        </role>
> >      </name>
> >
> > If I understand right including the "(Musical group)" bit is a
> holdover
> > from MARC tradition.  This makes me cringe a bit (musical group is,
> > after all, additional metadata about the name; not the name itself),
> > and am just wondering if this would work as well?
> >
> >      <name type="corporate">
> >         <namePart>Roustabouts</namePart>
> >         <role>
> >                 <code>prf</code>
> >         </role>
> >         <description>Musical group</description>
> >      </name>
> >
> > Bruce
> >