More confusing yet, if you look at the raw XML for that record (add viaf.xml to the end of the URI and then view source) you’ll see that the name type is indeed Geographic.
My boss is puzzled.
From: Ya'aqov Ziso [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:56 AM
To: Code for Libraries
Cc: LeVan,Ralph; Houghton,Andrew
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
Ralph, Owen's pointing to a list where corporate (110) and geographic names (151) are mixed.
Thanks Owen, I haven't seen that the first time. I guess you got that mixed 110/151 when limiting to 'exact name'. Perhaps Andrew has a workaround.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:34 AM, LeVan,Ralph <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
If you look at the fields those names come from, I think they mean
England as a corporation, not England as a place.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Owen Stephens
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
> Still digesting Andrew's response (thanks Andrew), but
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ya'aqov Ziso <[log in to unmask]>
> > *Currently under id.loc.gov you will not find name authority
> > you can find them at viaf.org*.
> > *[YZ]* viaf.org does not include geographic names. I just checked
> > England.
> Is this not the relevant VIAF entry
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: [log in to unmask]
ya'aqovZISO | [log in to unmask] | 856 217 3456