---------------------- Forwarded by Cliff Morgan/Chichester/Wiley on
20/07/99 17:58 ---------------------------


Cliff Morgan
20/07/99 17:21

To:   [log in to unmask] (Diane I. Hillmann)
cc:
Subject:  Re: Draft Proposal from the Working Group on Bibliographic
      Citations  (Document link not converted)

Thanks Diane. I've responded separately earlier today to Priscilla and the
general list about chronology. In essence, chronology didn't seem necessary
to define a journal issue for a minimum core set. If you know the volume
and issue number, why do you also need to know that it's the March or First
Quarter or Spring issue? In my reply, I also question whether chronology in
the sense of "the March issue" actually has anything to do with real dates.

As for the use of specific locational information (such as pages) in the
Relation value, I do agree to a certain amount of uneasiness since an
article, for example, is clearly not part of itself - it's part of an issue
which is part of a volume which is part of a journal, and the page numbers
are specific to the article itself and not the things of which it is part.
I recognise our recommendation for the expedience that it is.  One other
alternative would be to say that this information is outside DC and to
record it with a local extension, although I personally think that would be
a shame for something as basic as an article's pagination.

We can't rely on the SICI for this because (at least in its present
incarnation, version 2), only the first page number ("the initial site")
can be recorded, not the range. Also, many publishers have reservations
about the SICI (can't use the same number for an article prepublication;
character set problems with the angle brackets and hash sign; lack of
clarity re how to deal with non-standard characters in the title code;
insufficient guarantee of uniqueness when articles start on the same page)
so we can't push this. As far as I'm aware, there is no standard (de jure
or de facto) identifier in use that gives full page information.

If our expedient, "bung it all into Relation" approach is not generally
supported, I would agree that the most suitable alternative solution would
be to put full citation information into identifier, but this means that we
must allow the dc.identifier tag to have a value that is a text string such
as "Journal of the American Association of Metadata Studies, Volume 1, No.
1, pp. 1-15", and I didn't think that fitted in with the current (1.1)
definition of what would be an expected value.

Regards

Cliff




[log in to unmask] (Diane I. Hillmann) on 12/07/99 14:21:27

Please respond to [log in to unmask] (Diane I. Hillmann)

To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:    (bcc: Cliff Morgan/Chichester/Wiley)
Subject:  Re: Draft Proposal from the Working Group on Bibliographic
      Citations




Folks,

In general this proposal seems to be quite reasonable, and I've no quarrel
with the WG decisions on derivations and the use of Relation instead of
Source.

I also agree with Cilla that chronology needs to be included.

However, I think the decision to include page numbering when ostensably
referring to the journal itself, though expedient, is not sound.  How will
we ever get a handle on the granularity and hierarchy issues inherent in
these relationships if we recommend violating them in situations like this?

It seems to me that what you are trying to do here is to duplicate the
identifier in textual form, rather than describe the item that it is
related to.

I would suggest that for many resources, it should not necessary to include
page ranges in Relation, particularly if a SICI or other identifier is used
that includes information on the pages or position of the item in the
journal. There will, however, be times when there will be a need to have
the information traditionally included in a full citation, to order the
records for record management reasons, for instance.  In that case, it
seems to me there should be an option to include a full citation as an
additional identifier or in an implementation specific administrative data
field.

Diane Hillmann
Cornell University Library


>I understand from the Guidelines for Dublin Core Working Groups (draft
1.4)
>that once a Chair has established consensus within the WG, the Group's
>recommendations should be circulated to the dc-general list for comment.
>Below, you will find our Recommendations. (Please refer to
>http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-citation if you would like to see who
is
>in the Working Group and the discussions behind the recommendations.)
>Comments should be posted to this list by Monday 19 July.
>
>i) SCOPE OF THE WORKING GROUP
>
>We agreed to focus on the metadata of the bibliographic record of the
>resource, not the metadata of citations (references) to the resource.
>
>ii) MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED
>
>We agreed that we should limit ourselves to two specific questions raised
>in the meta2 discussion lists last year, namely a) how to indicate journal
>article metadata in a bibliographic record, covering the article's
location
>within a journal title, volume, issue and pages, and b) how to indicate
>edition/version/release information in a resource's bibliographic record.
>
>iii) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JOURNAL ARTICLE INFORMATION
>
>We recommend that the most appropriate place for this information is
>DC.Relation.
>
>We also considered Title, Description, Identifier and Source, but these
>were rejected in favour of Relation. DC.Title should contain the article
>title but no other locational information. DC.Identifier should contain
one
>or more identifiers for the article itself (e.g. the article SICI, PII,
>DOI, URL, etc.) but should not contain identifiers to the issue, volume or
>journal.
>
>The major discussion centred around whether the most appropriate DC tag
was
>Relation or Source. Some arguments were put forward that, for the
>electronic version of an article, DC.Source could be used to identify the
>print "original" (i.e.  with Journal, Volume, Issue and Pages), and this
is
>a common implementation practice, but we rejected this argument on the
>basis that you couldn't say which version was derived from which other
>version.  The electronic version *may* be derived from the print (e.g. by
a
>process of back-conversion from typeset files to HTML) or the print may
>derive from the electronic: how do you know what processes have taken
>place? The print may be released before the electronic, or vice versa, or
>they may be released simultaneously. And what if there is only the one
>version - only print or only electronic?
>
>Some implementers made a distinction between using Source when the
>electronic was derived from print and Relation when the resource only ever
>appeared in an electronic version. However, we regarded this distinction
as
>essentially arbitrary and reliant upon information that wouldn't always be
>available, so we recommend that Relation is used, whether the material is
>published first in print or not.
>
>The Working Group was not constrained into considering DC Simple (DC 1.0)
>solutions only, which would be very restrictive as far as specifying
>Relations go. On the other hand, DC Qualified is of course not yet stable,
>so any recommendations we make that use qualifiers are subject to future
>stabilisation.
>
>We recommend using the "IsPartOf" construct. The full location information
>should be given as both a text string and one or more identifiers *to the
>resource that the article is a part of*. The text string should include
the
>page range (or equivalent locational information in a non-page-based
>resource) - even though it could be argued that logically the article is
>not a *part* of a page range (it *spans* a page range rather than is
>subsumed within it), we recommend this practice because a) the page range
>appears naturally at the end of journal bibliographic information, b) we
>suspect implementers will put it there anyway, and c) they'll do this
>because there's nowhere else for it to go.
>
>For example, let's say we have an article in the Journal of the American
>Society for Information Science, Volume 47,  Issue 1, starting on Page 37.
>The SICI for this article is
1097-4571(199601)47:1<37::AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-3.
>The DOI is the SICI preceded by 10.1002/(SICI). The URL is the DOI
preceded
>by http://doi.wileynpt.com/.
>
>In the DC record for the article, we would have the above SICI, DOI and
URL
>all entered under DC.Identifier (with the appropriate Schemes indicated in
>DC Qualified).
>
>The text string for DC.Relation "IsPartOf" would be "Journal of the
>American Society for Information Science, Volume 47, Issue 1, Page 37".
>(The complete page range could also be included.) DC Qualified might break
>this down into subelements. (We would recommend explicit subelements such
>as JournalTitle, JournalVolume, JournalIssue, and JournalPages.)
>
>The identifiers within DC.Relation "IsPartOf" could be (again with
>appropriate Scheme designations): "1097-4571(199601)47:1<>1.0.CO;2-T" (for
>the SICI of the Issue that the article is a part of);
>"10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199601)47:1<>1.0.CO;2-T (for the DOI of the Issue
>that the article is part of); and "http://doi.wileynpt.com/10.1002 [and so
>on]" for the URL of the Issue that the article is part of.
>
>iv) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EDITION/VERSION/RELEASE
>
>We recommend that this information should go into DC.Title.
>
>Other options that we considered were Description, Identifier, and
Relation
>"IsVersionOf".
>
>Recommended subelement would be DC.Title.Release, whether we were
referring
>to editions, versions or releases, since   this was felt to be the most
>generic term.
>
>DC.Identifier should contain the relevant identifier of the release
itself,
>e.g. the ISBN of a 2nd edition of a title, but would not indicate release
>enumeration (e.g. it would not say "2nd edition" or "edition 2" or "2" in
>the Identifier field - this goes into Title).
>
>DC.Relation "IsVersionOf" can be used to refer back to previous versions
>but not to indicate the edition/version of the current resource.
>
>
>v) CONCLUSIONS
>
>a) We limited our scope to bibliographic records.
>
>b) We concentrated on two issues that had been specifically raised in
>previous discussion groups, and for which no conclusions had been reached.
>
>c) We recommend the use of DC.Relation "IsPartOf" for journal article
>placement information, i.e. for indicating which journal, volume, issue
and
>pages an article belongs to. This tag should be used whether the article
>started life as a print product or as an electronic one. The Relation can
>also refer to various Identifiers of the journal issue of which the
article
>is part.
>
>d) Edition/version/release information ought to be part of DC.Title. As a
>subelement, we recommend DC.Title.Release (which recommendation has
already
>been passed on to the Title Working Group).
>
>If there are no further comments by 19 July, I will pass the
>recommendations on to TAC (or, more correctly, the recently constituted
>DC-AC).
>
>Thanks
>
>Cliff Morgan
>
>Publishing Technologies Director
>
>John Wiley & Sons Ltd
>
>Chichester, UK














%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%