At 07:23 PM 6/11/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
>John, I'm sorry to keep going on about this, but I'm really puzzled.

And I keep replying because I think it is 
important to understand these things.  However, 
I'm clearly not as clear on some of the details 
of FRBR and FRAD as I should be.  I wish that 
others would join the conversation, but I will 
try to keep things going until that happens.

>I don't see anywhere that FRBR allows personas 
>to be persons. FRBR defines the entity Person as:
>
>"The fifth entity defined in the model is 
>person: an individual. The entity defined as 
>person encompasses individuals that are deceased 
>as well as those that are living."
>
>Then in terms of attributes of the entity (in 4.6.1) it says:
>
>"A person may be known by more than one name, or 
>by more than one form of the same name. A 
>bibliographic agency normally selects one of 
>those names as the uniform heading for purposes 
>of consistency in naming and referencing the 
>person. The other names or forms of name may be 
>treated as variant names for the person. In some 
>cases (e.g., in the case of a person who writes 
>under more than one pseudonym, or a person who 
>writes both in an official capacity and as an 
>individual) the bibliographic agency may 
>establish more than one uniform heading for the person."
>
>So it looks to me like FRBR's person is indeed 
>the biological person, but who can have multiple 
>*personas* (using your terminology) represented 
>by different "uniform headings." If that isn't 
>what FRBR *means* it sure seems to be what it *says*.

FRBR 4.6.1 isn't really talking about 
bibliographic identities.  This is more about 
name variations: this includes variations of the 
same name (initials vs. full names, etc.) and 
different names (the most common case is a person 
who changes his or her name, e.g. a married name) 
-- not when a single biological person adopts 
distinct identities as the creator or contributor 
to a bibliographic resource.  RDA is consistent 
with 4.6.1, but does not consider pseudonyms to 
fall under these guidelines; rather RDA 
interprets the definition of person to cover our 
concept of separate bibliographic identities -- 
thus treating them as distinct persons.

>I note that the RDA mapping to FRBR does not 
>include FRBR person; and that the RDA mapping to 
>FRAD includes the FRAD person. But we seem to 
>have established that the FRAD person and the 
>FRBR person have different qualities.

I don't think that is what is intended.  My 
understanding is that the group 2 entities in 
FRAD are supposed to be identical with the same 
entities in FRBR.  I think we chose to map the 
FRAD entities because FRAD contains the most 
up-to-date list of attributes for those entities.

>The FRAD (FRANAR) definition of a person is:
>
>"Person
>An individual or a persona established or 
>adopted by an individual or group. [FRBR, modified]
>
>Includes real individuals. Includes personas 
>established or adopted by an individual through 
>the use of more than one name (e.g., the 
>individual’s real name and/or one or more 
>pseudonyms). Includes personas established or 
>adopted jointly by two or more individuals 
>(e.g., Ellery Queen — joint pseudonym of 
>Frederic Dannay and Manfred B. Lee). Includes 
>personas established or adopted by a group (e.g., Betty Crocker)."
>
>This is a different definition from the FRBR one 
>(and it even says so here). So if I were to 
>define Person as an entity for the purposes of 
>RDA, it looks like I would need to use FRAD as 
>my basis, not FRBR. *OR* is FRBR being modified 
>to use the FRAD definition? Are there other 
>entities for which we should use the FRAD 
>definition and not the FRBR definition?

I would interpret this as an extension of FRBR, 
rather than a substantive difference; as I tried 
to indicate about FRBR 4.6.1, I don't think that 
the FRAD text contradicts FRBR, it simply adds 
something not explicit in FRBR.  I would expect 
that someday the two models will be reconciled 
and I would expect that the FRAD text would be 
added to FRBR -- or both models modified in a 
consistent way.  This is an inevitable problem 
when two different groups working separately and 
in succession look at what are supposed to be the 
same things.  And there is a third group working 
on subject authorities, which (from indirect 
reports) is taking an approach different from either FRBR or FRAD.

So, in terms of the definition as well as the 
attributes, I think that RDA is based on FRAD rather than FRBR.

Beyond that, I think that RDA does not adopt all 
aspects of FRAD.  As I have been trying to argue, 
RDA is not explicitly about authority control of 
access points for names of entities.  RDA does 
not include the Name entity (we treat name as an 
attribute rather than an entity, as does FRBR [I 
think]) nor the Rules or Agency 
entities.  Personally I believe that authority 
records have a place in a relational structure 
designed to support RDA, but the relationships 
are different and more complicated than those in the FRAD model.

And, of course, we are all making assumptions 
about what FRAD will actually say when it is 
published.  The length of time it is taking to 
finalize the document indicates that there are 
still issues under discussion and changes being considered.

         John Attig
         Authority Control Librarian
         Penn State University