Cliff, et al.:

I understand your concerns with chronology, but isn't it true that
describing chronology is harder from the point of view of a resource
provider (which is your "take," I think) than from the point of someone
describing something in front of them that was provided by someone else?
The arguments sound very similar to those concerning the Date element, in
some respects.  A provider of information may have need for many dates, not
all of which would be relevant to someone seeking to describe or access
that information.

But chronology is really, after all, primarily an aid to identification and
verification, I think.  If a user has a citation from another source which
includes a chronologic designation, and it doesn't appear on the metadata,
will this be a problem?  In many cases, whether it's a problem or not may
depend on how much other data is there to match to the citation in
hand--not always predictable or definable.  I think we can't just dismiss
chronology as not necessary.

As for including the pagination in the Relation element--the more I think
about it the less inclined I am to back off my objections. I think someone
mentioned that whether we expressly allow or recommend using pagination,
that people will do it anyway.  This has always been the case (we can't
protect people from their own poor judgment), but there's still a strong
argument for keeping the official DC recommendation "clean" in that
respect. There are alternatives, if there is a need to associate pagination
with other parts of the citation, for the purposes of ordering records,
maintenance, or whatever. But I strongly object to this portion of the
recommendation--I think it compromises our responsibility to recommend only
the optimal practices, no matter what we think will be done by implementors
in the name of expediency.

I have less of a problem including a full textual citation in Identifier,
and I don't think we've expressly disallowed that (in theory, a text string
is allowed in ANY element), rather we've suggested URI or equivalent as
optimal.  Particularly if the Identifier=[textual citation] is not the
*only* identification, I see no problem there (though others may disagree).

Diane

>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





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