Thanks Priscilla. Comments below. (I've preceded paras by (PC:) or (CM:) to
show their provenance. (CM:) followed by > indicates my earlier e-mail to
which you were responding.)
Cliff
Priscilla Caplan <[log in to unmask]> on 21/07/99 20:43:35
To: Cliff Morgan/Chichester/Wiley
cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Draft Proposal from the Working Group on Bibliographic
Citations
(CM:)>Just to stress here that by "article citation information", we meant
the
>bibliographic record for a journal article, not the metadata for any
>citation record *to* that article.
(PC:) Though we too were focusing on the metadata record for the article,
I'm
personally not sure that this is a productive distinction. Certainly, one
would hate to perpetuate the situation that a useful citation cannot be
generated from the metadata for an object.
(CM:) There are two separate issues here: 1) Can you generate a reference
citation from the article metadata? 2) Can you match to the article
metadata from a reference citation? The only arguable piece in (1), as far
as I can see, is the chronology. If you think that citation information
ought to mention the chronology (e.g. this isn't just Volume 14 no. 2 but
it's the February issue), then I agree the article record as indicated in
my earlier e-mail doesn't help you. I'm surprised to hear that such
chronological designations are used in reference citations - the reference
lists that I see rarely indicate the month (or other chronology); indeed,
many copy-editors would delete this from a citation if the volume and page
numbers were given because that's usually all you need. But let us accept
that sometimes people will want to indicate chronology, and therefore it
should be in the article record. In an earlier e-mail that I sent today to
Diane Hillman, I have addressed more fully where we could put chronology
and how it should be expressed. 2) Matching the article metadata to
citation information that has not been generated from that metadata is a
whole other issue.
(CM:)>The WG deliberately didn't address the issue of citation-as-reference
>metadata because we felt there were already enough other committees
looking
>into this, including the NISO/DLF/SSP/NFAIS one that you mention.
(PC:) This was not a committee but a workshop convened to address the
broader
problem of a model for reference linking. The extent to which they
addressed this question was to itemize required data elements, which I
included in my note to the citation working group. The hope was that the
WG would address these by finding some way to accomodate them.
(CM:) I don't think any data element is missing other than chronology, so
if chronology is included, I think we'll be in conformance with your
requirements. Is this right?
Cliff
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|