On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>wrote;wrote:
On Monday, 12 August 2013, Tom Morris wrote:
Is it intentional to restrict the definition to personal pseudonyms?
That doesn't cover all uses of them For example, there are house
pseudonyms used by publishing houses which are associated with a series and
the publishing house contracts with writers to write effectively
anonymously (although it's often known who they are).
Another example of a relatively well known collective pseudonym is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki There's a whole category
of them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_pseudonyms
Cases like this - where the pseudonym is a (collective) entity in itself -
would seem to be a good case for "member of" relationships - Henri Cartan
[is a member of] Nicholas Bourbaki as John Lennon [is a member of] the
Beatles.
A free-text pseudonym for each of the Bourbaki authors would mean there's
no easy way to connect them to that other element in future.
That seems reasonable. Perhaps it would be worthwhile updating the
property description for pseudonym to point people in the right direction
so they don't make that mistake.
Tom