Philosophy:Monadology

From HandWiki
Short description: Philosophical work by Leibniz


Monadology

The Monadology (French: La Monadologie, 1714) is one of Gottfried Leibniz's best known works of his later philosophy. It is a short text which presents, in some 90 paragraphs, a metaphysics of simple substances, or monads.

Text

The first manuscript page of the Monadology

During his last stay in Vienna from 1712 to September 1714, Leibniz wrote two short texts in French which were meant as concise expositions of his philosophy. After his death, Principes de la nature et de la grâce fondés en raison, which was intended for prince Eugene of Savoy, appeared in French in the Netherlands. Christian Wolff and collaborators published translations in German and Latin of the second text which came to be known as The Monadology. Without having seen the Dutch publication of the Principes they had assumed that it was the French original of the Monadology, which in fact remained unpublished until 1840.

The German translation appeared in 1720 as Lehrsätze über die Monadologie and the following year the Acta Eruditorum printed the Latin version as Principia philosophiae.[1] There are three original manuscripts of the text: the first written by Leibniz and glossed with corrections and two further emended copies with some corrections appearing in one but not the other.[2] Leibniz himself inserted references to the paragraphs of his Théodicée ("Theodicy", i.e. a justification of God), sending the interested reader there for more details.

Metaphysics

Context

The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors.[3] Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.[4] Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expose his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.

Summary

The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text

  • begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
  • then it turns to their principle or creator and
  • finishes by using both to explain the world.

(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".[5] Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18),[6] Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either (2) non-reasonable or (3) reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.

(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38–9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity".[7] God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives—his thoughts—"simply are monads".[8] Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47).[9] Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.

(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78–9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is—not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).[10]

In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."[11] The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)"[12] Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material".[13] That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective."[14] It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.[15]

(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad.[16] He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further.[17] This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.[18] This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.[19]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Lamarra A., Contexte Génétique et Première Réception de la Monadologie, Revue de Synthese 128 (2007) 311–323
  2. ↑ Leibniz G.W., La Monadologie, edition établie par E. Boutroux, Paris LGF 1991
  3. ↑ There is no indication that Leibniz has 'borrowed' it from a particular author, e.g. Giordano Bruno or John Dee, to mention just two popular sources
  4. ↑ Woolhouse R. and Francks R., Leibniz's "New System" and associated contemporary texts, Cambridge Univ. Press 1997
  5. ↑ Burnham, Douglas. "Gottfried Leibniz: Metaphysics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/#H8 [accessed May 2, 2016].
  6. ↑ On pourrait donner le nom d'entéléchies à toutes les substances simples ou Monades créées, car elles ont en elles une certaine perfection (ἔχουσι τὸ ἐντελές)
  7. ↑ Audi Robert, ed. "Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm." The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press (1999): 193.
  8. ↑ Look, Brandon C. "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz." Stanford University, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/leibniz [accessed February 27, 2016].
  9. ↑ Translated by Frederic Henry Hedge. "Leibniz's vestige view of God's creative act is employed to support his view of substance as an inherently active being possessed of its own dynamic force" in David Scott, "Leibniz model of creation and his doctrine of substance", Animus 3 (1998) [1]
  10. ↑ Burnham, Douglas. "Gottfried Leibniz: Metaphysics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/#H8 [accessed May 2, 2016].
  11. ↑ Look, Brandon C. "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz." Stanford University, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/leibniz [accessed February 27, 2016].
  12. ↑ Look, Brandon C. "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz." Stanford University, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/leibniz [accessed February 27, 2016].
  13. ↑ Pestana, Mark. "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz." World Philosophers & Their Works (2000): 1–4.
  14. ↑ Burnham, Douglas. "Gottfried Leibniz: Metaphysics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/#H8 [accessed May 2, 2016].
  15. ↑ Burnham, Douglas. "Gottfried Leibniz: Metaphysics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/#H8 [accessed May 2, 2016].
  16. ↑ Look, Brandon C.. "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz". Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#MonWorPhe. 
  17. ↑ Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Monadology. https://archive.org/details/monadologyotherp00leib. 
  18. ↑ Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Monadology. https://archive.org/details/monadologyotherp00leib. 
  19. ↑ Antognazza, Maria Rosa (2016). Leibniz. Oxford University Press. 

References

  • Nicholas Rescher N., G. W. Leibniz's Monadology, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8229-5449-4, ISBN 978-0-8229-5449-1
  • Savile A., Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Leibniz and the Monadology, Routledge (2000), ISBN 0-415-17113-X, ISBN 978-0-415-17113-7
Short description: Unique headings used for bibliographic information
For the Wikipedia information page, see Help:Authority control.

In information science, authority control is a process that organizes information, for example in library catalogs,[1][2][3] by using a single, distinct spelling of a name (heading) or an identifier (generally persistent and alphanumeric) for each topic or concept. The word authority in authority control derives from the idea that the names of people, places, things, and concepts are authorized, i.e., they are established in one particular form.[4][5][6] These one-of-a-kind headings or identifiers are applied consistently throughout catalogs which make use of the respective authority file,[7] and are applied for other methods of organizing data such as linkages and cross references.[7][8] Each controlled entry is described in an authority record in terms of its scope and usage, and this organization helps the library staff maintain the catalog and make it user-friendly for researchers.[9]

Catalogers assign each subject—such as author, topic, series, or corporation—a particular unique identifier or heading term which is then used consistently, uniquely, and unambiguously for all references to that same subject, which removes variations from different spellings, transliterations, pen names, or aliases.[10] The unique header can guide users to all relevant information including related or collocated subjects.[10] Authority records can be combined into a database and called an authority file, and maintaining and updating these files as well as "logical linkages"[11] to other files within them is the work of librarians and other information catalogers. Accordingly, authority control is an example of controlled vocabulary and of bibliographic control.


As time passes, information changes, prompting needs for reorganization. According to one view, authority control is not about creating a perfect seamless system but rather it is an ongoing effort to keep up with these changes and try to bring "structure and order" to the task of helping users find information.[9]

Benefits of authority control

  • Better researching. Authority control helps researchers understand a specific subject with less wasted effort.[10] A well-designed digital catalog/database enables a researcher to query a few words of an entry to bring up the already established term or phrase, thus improving accuracy and saving time.[12]
  • Makes searching more predictable.[13] It can be used in conjunction with keyword searching using "and" or "not" or "or" or other Boolean operators on a web browser.[11] It increases chances that a given search will return relevant items.[12]
  • Consistency of records.[14][15][16]
  • Organization and structure of information.[10]
  • Efficiency for catalogers. The process of authority control is not only of great help to researchers searching for a particular subject to study, but it can help catalogers organize information as well. Catalogers can use authority records when trying to categorize new items, since they can see which records have already been cataloged and can therefore avoid unnecessary work.[10][11]
  • Maximizes library resources. Authority control helps ensure libraries have an accurate inventory of their materials, so that, for example, duplicate orders are not placed for an already owned resource.[10]
  • Fewer errors. It can help catch errors caused by typos or misspellings which can sometimes accumulate over time, sometimes known as quality drift. These errors can then be corrected by library staff or by automated clean-up software.[9][17]

Examples

Diverse names describe the same subject

Princess Diana is described in one authority file as "Windsor, Diana, Princess of Wales" which is an official heading.

Sometimes within a catalog, there are diverse names or spellings for only one person or subject.[10][13] This variation may cause researchers to overlook relevant information. Authority control is used by catalogers to collocate materials that logically belong together but that present themselves differently. Records are used to establish uniform titles that collocate all versions of a given work under one unique heading even when such versions are issued under different titles. With authority control, one unique preferred name represents all variations and will include different variations, spellings and misspellings, uppercase versus lowercase variants, differing dates, and so forth. For example, in Wikipedia, the first wife of Charles III is described by an article Diana, Princess of Wales as well as numerous other descriptors, e.g. Princess Diana, but both Princess Diana and Diana, Princess of Wales describe the same person so they all redirect to the same main article; in general, all authority records choose one title as the preferred one for consistency. In an online library catalog, various entries might look like the following:[2][3]

  1. Diana. (1)
  2. Diana, Princess of Wales. (1)
  3. Diana, Princess of Wales, 1961–1997. (13)
  4. Diana, Princess of Wales 1961–1997. (1)
  5. Diana, Princess of Wales, 1961–1997. (2)
  6. DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES, 1961–1997. (1)

These terms describe the same person. Accordingly, authority control reduces these entries to one unique entry or officially authorized heading, sometimes termed an access point: Diana, Princess of Wales, 1961–1997.[18]

Authority file Heading / ID
Virtual International Authority File VIAF ID: 107032638
Wikipedia article/category Diana, Princess of Wales[19]
Wikidata Wikidata identifier: Q9685
Integrated Authority File (GND) GND ID: 118525123
U.S. Library of Congress Diana, Princess of Wales, 1961–1997
WorldCat Identities Diana Princess of Wales 1961–1997
Biblioteca Nacional de España Windsor, Diana, Princess of Wales
KANTO – National Agent Data (Finland) Diana, Walesin prinsessa / KANTO ID: 000104109
Getty Union List of Artist Names Diana, Princess of Wales English noble and patron, 1961–1997
National Library of the Netherlands Diana, prinses van Wales, 1961–1997[18]

Generally, there are different authority file headings and identifiers used by different libraries in different countries, possibly inviting confusion, but there are different approaches internationally to try to lessen the confusion. One international effort to prevent such confusion is the Virtual International Authority File which is a collaborative attempt to provide a single heading for a particular subject. It is a way to standardize information from different authority files around the world such as the Integrated Authority File (GND) maintained and used cooperatively by many libraries in German-speaking countries and the United States Library of Congress. The idea is to create a single worldwide virtual authority file. For example, the ID for Princess Diana in the GND is 118525123 (preferred name: Diana < Wales, Prinzessin>) while the United States Library of Congress uses the term Diana, Princess of Wales, 1961–1997; other authority files have other choices. The Virtual International Authority File choice for all of these variations is VIAF ID: 107032638 — that is, a common number representing all of these variations.[18]

The English Wikipedia prefers the term "Diana, Princess of Wales", but at the bottom of the article about her, there are links to various international cataloging efforts for reference purposes.

Same name describes two different subjects

Sometimes two different authors have been published under the same name.[10] This can happen if there is a title which is identical to another title or to a collective uniform title.[10] This, too, can cause confusion. Different authors can be distinguished correctly from each other by, for example, adding a middle initial to one of the names; in addition, other information can be added to one entry to clarify the subject, such as birth year, death year, range of active years such as 1918–1965 when the person flourished, or a brief descriptive epithet. When catalogers come across different subjects with similar or identical headings, they can disambiguate them using authority control.

Authority records and files

A customary way of enforcing authority control in a bibliographic catalog is to set up a separate index of authority records, which relates to and governs the headings used in the main catalog. This separate index is often referred to as an "authority file". It contains an indexable record of all decisions made by catalogers in a given library (or—as is increasingly the case—cataloging consortium), which catalogers consult when making, or revising, decisions about headings. As a result, the records contain documentation about sources used to establish a particular preferred heading, and may contain information discovered while researching the heading which may be useful.[17]

While authority files provide information about a particular subject, their primary function is not to provide information but to organize it.[17] They contain enough information to establish that a given author or title is unique, but that is all; irrelevant but interesting information is generally excluded. Although practices vary internationally, authority records in the English-speaking world generally contain the following information:

  • Headings show the preferred title chosen as the official and authorized version. It is important that the heading be unique; if there is a conflict with an identical heading, then one of the two will have to be chosen:

    Since the headings function as access points, making sure that they are distinct and not in conflict with existing entries is important. For example, the English novelist William Collins (1824–89), whose works include the Moonstone and The Woman in White is better known as Wilkie Collins. Cataloguers [sic] have to decide which name the public would most likely look under, and whether to use a see also reference to link alternative forms of an individual's name.

    — Mason, M.K., Purpose of authority work and files[20]

  • Cross references are other forms of the name or title that might appear in the catalog and include:
    1. see references are forms of the name or title that describe the subject but which have been passed over or deprecated in favor of the authorized heading form
    2. see also references point to other forms of the name or title that are also authorized. These see also references generally point to earlier or later forms of a name or title.
  • Statement(s) of justification is a brief account made by the cataloger about particular information sources used to determine both authorized and deprecated forms. Sometimes this means citing the title and publication date of the source, the location of the name or title on that source, and the form in which it appears on that source.

For example, the Irish writer Brian O'Nolan, who lived from 1911 to 1966, wrote under many pen names such as Flann O'Brien and Myles na Gopaleen. Catalogers at the United States Library of Congress chose one form—"O'Brien, Flann, 1911–1966"—as the official heading.[21] The example contains all three elements of a valid authority record: the first heading O'Brien, Flann, 1911–1966 is the form of the name that the Library of Congress chose as authoritative. In theory, every record in the catalog that represents a work by this author should have this form of the name as its author heading. What follows immediately below the heading beginning with Na Gopaleen, Myles, 1911–1966 are the see references. These forms of the author's name will appear in the catalog, but only as transcriptions and not as headings. If a user queries the catalog under one of these variant forms of the author's name, he or she would receive the response: "See O'Brien, Flann, 1911–1966." There is an additional spelling variant of the Gopaleen name: "Na gCopaleen, Myles, 1911–1966" has an extra C inserted because the author also employed the non-anglicized Irish spelling of his pen-name, in which the capitalized C shows the correct root word while the preceding g indicates its pronunciation in context. So if a library user comes across this spelling variant, he or she will be led to the same author regardless. See also references, which point from one authorized heading to another authorized heading, are exceedingly rare for personal name authority records, although they often appear in name authority records for corporate bodies. The final four entries in this record beginning with His At Swim-Two-Birds ... 1939. constitute the justification for this particular form of the name: it appeared in this form on the 1939 edition of the author's novel At Swim-Two-Birds, whereas the author's other noms de plume appeared on later publications.

Card catalog records such as this one used to be physical cards contained in long rectangular drawers in a library; today, generally, this information is stored in online databases.[17]
Authority control with "Kesey, Ken" as the chosen heading.[17]

Access control

The act of choosing a single authorized heading to represent all forms of a name is quite often a difficult and complex task, considering that any given individual may have legally changed their name or used a variety of legal names in the course of their lifetime, as well as a variety of nicknames, pen names, stage names or other alternative names. It may be particularly difficult to choose a single authorized heading for individuals whose various names have controversial political or social connotations, when the choice of authorized heading may be seen as endorsement of the associated political or social ideology.

An alternative to using authorized headings is the idea of access control, where various forms of a name are related without the endorsement of one particular form.[22]

Cooperative cataloging

Before the advent of digital online public access catalogs and the Internet, individual cataloging departments within each library generally carried out creating and maintaining a library's authority files. Naturally, there was a considerable difference in the authority files of the different libraries. For the early part of library history, it was generally accepted that, as long as a library's catalog was internally consistent, the differences between catalogs in different libraries did not matter greatly.

As libraries became more attuned to the needs of researchers and began interacting more with other libraries, the value of standard cataloging practices came to be recognized. With the advent of automated database technologies, catalogers began to establish cooperative consortia, such as OCLC and RLIN in the United States, in which cataloging departments from libraries all over the world contributed their records to, and took their records from, a shared database. This development prompted the need for national standards for authority work.

In the United States, the primary organization for maintaining cataloging standards with respect to authority work operates under the aegis of the Library of Congress Program for Cooperative Cataloging. It is known as the Name Authority Cooperative Program, or NACO Authority.[23]

Standards

There are various standards using different acronyms.

Standards for authority metadata

Standards for object identification, controlled by an identification-authority

Standards for identified-object metadata

See also

References

  1. ↑ Block, R. (1999). Authority control: What it is and why it matters. Retrieved on 27 October 2006.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "Why Does a Library Catalog Need Authority Control and What Is it?". IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITY CONTROL. Vermont Department of Libraries. 2003. http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/LIBRARIES/TSU/Lesson1Authority.htm. , then ... please [feel free to] see the next footnote, which links to a web page having the exact same title that does still exist (at a slightly different URL).Pages across the work refer in their text to 2003 as the most recent year, as no other date is specified.-->
  3. ↑ "auctor". Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper. 2013. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=auctor&searchmode=none. "author (n) — c. 1300, autor "father," from O.Fr. auctor, acteor "author, originator, creator, instigator (12c., Mod.Fr. auteur), from L. auctorem (nom. auctor) ... –
    authority (n.) — early 13c., autorite "book or quotation that settles an argument," from O.Fr. auctorité "authority, prestige, right, permission, dignity, gravity; the Scriptures" (12c.; Mod.Fr. autorité), ..."      Note: root words for both author and authority are words such as auctor or autor and autorite from the 13th century.
  4. ↑ "authority (control)". 2012. http://www.memidex.com/authority+control. "Etymology ... autorite "book or quotation that settles an argument", from Old French auctorité..." 
  5. ↑ Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2012). "authority". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority?show=0&t=1354895338. "See "Origin of authority" – Middle English auctorite, from Anglo-French auctorité, from Latin auctoritat-, auctoritas opinion, decision, power, from auctor First Known Use: 13th century..." 
  6. ↑ 7.0 7.1 "Authority Control at the NMSU Library". United States: New Mexico State University. 2007. http://lib.nmsu.edu/depts/techsvs/authoritycontrol.shtml. 
  7. ↑ "Authority Control in OPAC". October 27, 2018. https://www.lisbdnetwork.com/authority-control-in-opac/. 
  8. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Wells, K. (n.d.). "Got authorities? Why authority control is good for your library". Tennessee Libraries. http://www.tnla.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=44. 
  9. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 National Library of Australia. (n.d.). "Collection description policy". http://www.nla.gov.au/policy-and-planning/authority-control. "The primary purpose of authority control is to assist the catalogue user in locating items of interest." 
  10. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 "Authority Control at LTI". LTI. 2012. http://www.authoritycontrol.com/book/export/html/4. 
  11. ↑ 12.0 12.1 NCSU Libraries. (2012). "Brief guidelines on authority control decision-making". https://staff.lib.ncsu.edu/confluence/display/MNC/brief+guidelines+on+authority+control+decision-making. 
  12. ↑ 13.0 13.1 University Libraries (2012). "Authority Control in Unicorn WorkFlows August 2001". http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/training/training_docs/authority_control_unicorn.shtml. "Why Authority Control?" 
  13. ↑ Burger, R.H. (1985). Authority work: The creation, use, maintenance, and evaluation of authority records and files.. Libraries Unlimited. ISBN 9780872874916. https://archive.org/details/authorityworkcre00burg. 
  14. ↑ Clack, D.H. (1990). Authority Control: Principles, Applications, and Instructions. UMI Books on Demand. ISBN 9780608014432. https://books.google.com/books?id=orhBAAAACAAJ. 
  15. ↑ Maxwell, R.L. (2002). Maxwell's guide to authority work. Garfield Library Association. ISBN 9780838908228. https://archive.org/details/maxwellsguidetoa00maxw_0. 
  16. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 Calhoun, Karen (June 22–23, 1998). "A Bird's Eye View of Authority Control in Cataloging". Workshop on the Compilation, Maintenance, and Dissemination of Taxonomic Authority Files (TAF): a comparison of authority control in the library science and biodiversity information management communities. Washington, D.C.: California Academy of Sciences. https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/informatics/taf/proceedings/Calhoun.html. Retrieved 25 November 2012. 
  17. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Virtual International Authority File. Records for Princess Diana, Retrieved on 12 March 2013
  18. ↑ Note: this is the article title as of March 12, 2013
  19. ↑ "Purpose of Authority Work and Files". http://www.moyak.com/papers/libraries-bibliographic-control.html. 
  20. ↑ "Authorities files". http://authorities.loc.gov/. ; the original record has been abbreviated for clarity.
  21. ↑ Barnhart, L. (n.d.). Access Control Records: Prospects and Challenges, Authority Control in the 21st Century: An Invitational Conference. Retrieved on 28 January 2020.
  22. ↑ Library of Congress. "Program for Cooperative Cataloging". https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/. 
  23. ↑ "MARC 21 Format for Authority Data". https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ecadhome.html. 
  24. ↑ International Council on Archives. "ISAAR (CPF): International standard archival authority record for corporate bodies, persons, and families". http://www.ica.org/en/node/30230. 
  25. ↑ International Council on Archives. "ICArchives : Page d'accueil : Accueil". Ica.org. http://www.ica.org/. 






Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Philosophy:Monadology&oldid=31707"