Diane and dc-general,
Using the Source (which is really a specialised case of Relation)
element to capture a journal article citation was previously
discussed and discarded by the DC-Citation working group. I agree
that it seems intuitive and in fact I used Source for this purpose in
some earlier implementations. The main objection to using Source
is where to capture 'page number'. Page is an essential part of a
citation, but it belongs to the article, ie the resource itself, not to
the journal issue information (the source). In fact, the article
bibliographic citation information *is* the identifier for the article.
The problem with the journal article citation issue is that, because
the recommendation hasn't yet been ratified by DCMI, the
arguments keep going round in circles as new people become
interested. New ideas aren't necessarily a bad thing, but make it
difficult to reach decisions. Previous discussions from the DC-
Citation working group should all be in the list's email archive (I
hope they'll be transfered from mailbase to jiscmail).
I feel that discussions on this subject ideally should take place on
the dc-citation list. It is that working group which has to reach
consensus before a new recommendation can be made. The
subject is probably not of interest to the majority of subscribers to
dc-general. So I would encourage anyone interested in this issue to
join dc-citation.
Best wishes,
Ann
Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:54:20 -0500
Subject: Thoughts on citations
From: "Diane Boehr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Send reply to: "Diane Boehr" <[log in to unmask]>
> Ever since attending the DC-8 Workshop, I have been troubled by the
> outcome of the straw poll on where to record the journal title/main
> work in records for citations. While a lovely intellectual argument
> was made for using Identifier, this seems so counter-intuitive, that
> even with a really good set of instructions, I doubt if most resource
> creators would think of using it.
>
> Take a look at the major citation indexes available online. In
> PubMed, Biosis, PsychInfo, etc. the journal title is consistently
> being put in a field commonly abbreviated SO, and spelled out as
> Source/Journal title. DC already has a field called Source--although
> the current defintion is fuzzy and difficult to apply. Many have
> suggested that "resources from which a present resource is derived"
> really belongs in Relation. I suggest we redefine Source to: A
> reference to a larger resource in which the present resource is
> contained.
>
> Any other type of derived resources would be described in Relation.
> This will make it very clear where journal titles belong, and
> correspond to what most citation producers are actually calling this
> data.
>
>
>
>
>
> Diane Boehr
> Cataloging Unit Head
> National Library of Medicine
> 8600 Rockville Pike
> Bethesda, MD 20894
> 301-435-7059
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Ann Apps. Electronic Publishing @ MIMAS. Manchester Computing,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6039 Fax: +44 (0) 0161 275 6040
Email: [log in to unmask] WWW: http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/ann.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|