Re: new bibliographic data schema proposal

Bruce D'Arcus <[email protected]> was heard to say:

>
> OK, though a) I'm not so sure journals don't have sections (indeed,
> Nature's RSS feeds include section info), and b) even if not, allowing
> an optional "section" element on article would hardly be problematic.

In fact, I've done just that, now that I reread my schema. journalabstract,
journalarticle, magazinearticle, and newspaperarticle share the same content
model (the schema went through dozens of reincarnations, so I'm confused at
times). However, as I noticed previously I have to record the distinction
between e.g. an abstract and an article published in a journal, although this
is the very same according to your model. If it comes to formatting, it is the
same no more, therefore I must be able to tell them apart. Hence two different
types.

> I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't find it
> at all intuitive, and as I said before, I think consensus is on my
> side.
>

I'm not so sure although I don't have any statistical data. There was a
discussion on the TEI list about the biblStruct and biblItem elements just the
other day. There were several posts in favour of the existing
analytical/monographic/series distinction, and none in favour of replacing it
with something else. And most of these posts were from people who were
concerned about transforming the bibliographic data to particular output
formats.

> I don't see how. I've already written a schema that works. It's as easy as:
>
> element biblio:Article { rdf.id, (biblio.base_properties &
> biblio.part_properties) }
>

I've got here:

periodicalarticle-content = attlist.entry, periodicalarticle-part, (relation |
periodical-publication), refinfo, libinfo

I don't see a major difference , except that in my case "xyz-part" invariably
means analytical info, and that the monographic container can either be
referenced (if it already exists), or its information can be provided directly
(as a convenience when writing or importing datasets).

> The problem is that this level business comes from librarians, who in
> fact a) have different metadata needs than scholera (their focus is
> the "monographic"), and b) have moved on to more advanced modelling as
> witnessed in MODS, and in particular, FRBR. Nowhere will you find in
> those models hard-coded notions like part and monograph/publication.
>

In MODS, they shamefully insert a "monographic" into the issuance element of the
origin information of a monographic item. If you have an item a "is_part_of"
item b, you could not tell whether to format it as an analytical item that
appeared in a monograph or as a monographic item that appeared in a series
unless you mark one of the items as a monograph. And I don't see why this
should not be done explicitly.

regards,
Markus

-- 
Markus Hoenicka
[email protected]
(Spam-protected email: replace the quadrupeds with "mhoenicka")
http://www.mhoenicka.de



-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642