alt names approach

Moving to a new thread.

So Frank asks:On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Frank Bennett <@Frank_Bennett> wrote:

Re the names stuff, would it be possible to use “primary” and
"secondary" as name part types, rather than “given-name” and
"family-name"? Formatters need to know which part is to be used as
the primary key for name-based sorting, so it has to be possible
(whatever the original structure of the names data) to identify them.
But it might not be possible to know for certain whether a name part
really represents a family or a given name – and that classification
is not a foolproof guide for either sorting or for display formatting,
without additional metadata that the data set may not provide.

I’d never thought about using this approach. What do others think?

I would say, though, that if we did go this route, I’d want more clear
values; like “primary-key” and “secondary-key.”

I’d also want to know how this relates to organizational names.

Bruce

Moving to a new thread.

So Frank asks:

Re the names stuff, would it be possible to use “primary” and
"secondary" as name part types, rather than “given-name” and
"family-name"? Formatters need to know which part is to be used as
the primary key for name-based sorting, so it has to be possible
(whatever the original structure of the names data) to identify them.
But it might not be possible to know for certain whether a name part
really represents a family or a given name – and that classification
is not a foolproof guide for either sorting or for display formatting,
without additional metadata that the data set may not provide.

I’d never thought about using this approach. What do others think?

I would say, though, that if we did go this route, I’d want more clear
values; like “primary-key” and “secondary-key.”

I’d also want to know how this relates to organizational names.

Got it. Organizational names need to be distinguished, so that
something like that is aimed at the primary element of
personal names doesn’t catch organizational names as well. I can
think of three ways to go:

  • Use a completely separate type (type=“literal”)
  • Use a subtype (type=“primary-key” subtype=“literal”)
  • Split primary-key into two (type=“primary-key-person” vs
    type=“primary-key-institution”)

The third option looks best to me. (In a trial implementation I used
the first option, but it’s deceptive and confusing in the same way as
first-name/given-name.) There might be another better solution, I’ll
follow whatever the group decides.

Frank