That is true that it breaks the semantics of coverage. It also breaks the
semantics of publisher. So there is nowhere else to put place of
publication in DC. One could say that it could only go in a description of
the publisher-- in a different metadata instance (but of the agent, and
thus not exactly covered by DC).
Rebecca
On Fri, 27 May 2005, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> But coverage is not the correct property for a place name associated with
> the publisher since that breaks the semantics of coverage ("content of the
> resource" is the operative phrase).
>
> Andrew Wilson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: 27 May 2005 15:19
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Publishing place
>
>
> Place is given in dc:coverage. There is no way in simple DC to associate
> that place with the publisher, but that is where a place name goes.
>
> Definition and comment:
> "Element Description: The extent or scope of the content of the
> resource. Coverage will typically include spatial location (a place name
> or geographic co-ordinates), temporal period (a period label, date, or
> date range) or jurisdiction (such as a named administrative
> entity). Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled
> vocabulary (for example, the Thesaurus of Geographic Names [Getty
> Thesaurus of Geographic Names,
> http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/tgn/]). Where appropriate,
> named places or time periods should be used in preference to numeric
> identifiers such as sets of co-ordinates or date ranges."
>
> Rebecca
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
> ^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
> ^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
> ^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
> ^^ Library of Congress ^^
> ^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
> ^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
> ^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
> ^^ ^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >
> > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:50:38 -0500
> > From: "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Publishing place in Simple DC?
> >
> > Hello all-
> >
> > Where should one put a publishing place in a *simple* Dublin Core
> > record? I get the sense that including this information in the
> > <dc:publisher> element is common practice, especially in DC records
> > created in a library environment where publishing place and publisher
> > name are typically recorded together. But is that "best practice" from a
> > DC perspective? The definition of <dc:publisher> explicitly refers to
> > the entity itself, and the place where that entity conducts business is
> > not the entity itself. What are the other options of places for this
> > data to go? Does best practice differ if both the publisher and
> > publishing place is known vs. if only the publishing place is known?
> > =20
> > One argument might be that publishing place is a property of a publisher
> > and not of something published by that publishing entity. By that
> > argument, publishing place doesn't belong in the record for the item at
> > all but in the record for the publishing house. But I'm not entirely
> > convinced by this argument. Publishing place is much more a property of
> > a book than the birth place or date of the author of that book.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any ideas,
> >
> > Jenn
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > Jenn Riley
> > Metadata Librarian
> > Digital Library Program
> > Indiana University - Bloomington
> > Wells Library E170
> > (812) 856-5759
> > www.dlib.indiana.edu
> >
> > Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:18:56 -0700
> > From: Mary Woodley <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: Publishing place in Simple DC?
> >
> > Jenn,
> >
> > You may want to consider how auction houses are now treated in the LC name
> > authorities. Originally, auction houses were not qualified by place, even
> > though an auction house like Sotheby's have auction houses
> internationally.
> > When bibliographic records for auction catalogs were converted from
> SCIPIO
> > records to MARC, there developed a problem with libraries maintaining
> > authority control since auction catalogs needed to use the individual
> > auction houses to identify specific catalogs. So now, the publisher /
> > auction house is qualified by place:
> >
> > Sotheby's (Beverly Hills, Calif.)
> >
> > In our projects, we use our institution as the publisher of the digital
> > object. For digitized books, publisher information was added to the
> > description/note or we added a call number that links to catalog record in
> > our Library Catalog (some the links were broken when we migrated to a new
> > ILS system)
> >
> > The problem is the one-to-one issue which many of us do not follow: we
> > describe the original and the digital surrogate. But we kept thinking
> about
> > how each specific record would look if harvested and taken out of its
> local
> > context. In this case, we thought it was important to identify our
> > institution as the publisher of the digital object and not to confuse
> > matters by adding the publisher for the original object.
> >
> > You might want to look at the work that the citation working group have
> > done. Our digital management software (CONTENTdm) allows us to make
> > hierarchical metadata: monograph. We can have metadata for the work as a
> > whole, and for the individual pages.
> >
> > Mary Woodley
> > California State University, Northridge
> >
> >
> > ---- Original message ----
> > >Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:50:38 -0500
> > >From: "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Subject: Publishing place in Simple DC?
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >Hello all-
> > >
> > >Where should one put a publishing place in a *simple* Dublin Core
> > >record? I get the sense that including this information in the
> > ><dc:publisher> element is common practice, especially in DC records
> > >created in a library environment where publishing place and publisher
> > >name are typically recorded together. But is that "best practice" from a
> > >DC perspective? The definition of <dc:publisher> explicitly refers to
> > >the entity itself, and the place where that entity conducts business is
> > >not the entity itself. What are the other options of places for this
> > >data to go? Does best practice differ if both the publisher and
> > >publishing place is known vs. if only the publishing place is known?
> > >
> > >One argument might be that publishing place is a property of a publisher
> > >and not of something published by that publishing entity. By that
> > >argument, publishing place doesn't belong in the record for the item at
> > >all but in the record for the publishing house. But I'm not entirely
> > >convinced by this argument. Publishing place is much more a property of
> > >a book than the birth place or date of the author of that book.
> > >
> > >Thanks in advance for any ideas,
> > >
> > >Jenn
> > >
> > >========================
> > >Jenn Riley
> > >Metadata Librarian
> > >Digital Library Program
> > >Indiana University - Bloomington
> > >Wells Library E170
> > >(812) 856-5759
> > >www.dlib.indiana.edu
> > >
> > >Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
> > *********************************************************
> > Mary S. Woodley, Ph.D.
> > Collection Development Coordinator
> > California State University, Northridge
> > Northridge CA 91330-8328
> > [log in to unmask]
> > voice (818) 677-2261 fax: (818) 677-4928
> > *********************************************************
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of DC-GENERAL Digest - 11 May 2005 to 26 May 2005 (#2005-31)
> > ****************************************************************
> >
>
>
|