>
> NB. I'm concerned here only with "subject identifiers" (not with
> "resource identifiers/locators").
I'm not sure that makes a difference -- identification should be the
same for both, right?
>
> Case 1.
>
> In our archaeological database we have (sometimes) to distinguish a
> geo-political entity (as a legal body) from its
> territory. E.g. The Habsburg Empire. Its territory was (very)
> time-dependent. So, when we locate a historical site we
> have to be very careful with the jurisdiction. How to identify
> conveniently the Habsburg Empire's territory ?
>
> Besides: one identifier also for the "Austrian Empire" (i.e. ante
> 1867) and one for "Austria-Hungary (1867 - 1918) ?
> That is, 3 in totto ?
Right. Then the trick is to create some place where you identify the
relationships between them, kind of "preceding/succeeding", like we do
for serial titles. The LC authority file has things like "Italy
(Fascist Republic : 1943-1945)". However, I don't think we actually do
this very well in the name authority files, because we don't generally
include specific relationships, so this is an area where adding
relationships could really help disambiguate.
Basically, every new "thing"or concept gets a different identifier,
even if we use the same language terms for them (Pluto the celestial
body v. Pluto the Disney character), so the identifier overcomes the
ambiguity of language.
>
> The case applies also to the birth/death places of persons in
> authority files, no ?
Ideally, but, wow, getting that level of accuracy may be hard. If we
had good reference materials it would be easier, but something would
need to exist to help catalogers understand what country Strasbourg
was in at that moment of time. So it sounds like we need a really
well-designed historico-political database that allows anyone to go
through time and space. Of course, geopolitical info is already so
difficult because most places have different names in different
languages, and you need to be able to translate. I'm always thrown off
by the fact that Italians call Munich "Monaco", which is what in
English we call that funny little country on the Mediterranean. So I
think this is not so much a technical problem but an information
problem. I think the use of identifiers would work if we had all the
info we needed.
>
> Case 2.
>
> In our movable heritage database, we have - of course - to record
> the "is keeper of" in CRM terms) relationship between
> the object and the museum. But, for instance, the local authorities
> of my home town periodically change the
> organisation of the city museum. So from time to time, the art
> museum, the history museum and the ethnographic museum
> are merged in one museum, and after a couple of years, they are made
> autonomous again. Of course, always for a better
> management :-)
This is done in authority records, although I don't think that the
relationships are well coded.
>
> Case 3 (not encountered in my current job).
>
> We speak about:
>
> a) Wittgenstein I and Wittgenstein II;
> b) Marx and Young Marx;
I think anything can get an identifier, so if there's a concept of
Marx and Young Marx that you want to include in your metadata, you can
identify it.
kc
>
> not to mention Saul/Paul :-)
>
>
> I do not have a decent solution to this kind of time-dependent
> identities. Any ideas ?
>
> Dan
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dan Matei, director
> CIMEC - Institutul de Memorie Culturala [Institute for Cultural Memory]
> Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90
> 013701 București [Bucharest], Romania, www.cimec.ro
> tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64
> www.cimec.ro
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sun Nov 01 2009 - 13:20:46 EST