Re: [Fwd: Re: document/collection types]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: document/collection types]

Matthias Steffens
On 30-Jul-07 at 15:37 -0400 Frederick Giasson wrote:

> >>Document
> >>     InternetDocument # I'm [not] convinced we need this as a
> >>     full type
> >
> >I agree, especially when one considers that in the future a thesis
> >or a report (or whatever) may be published online exclusively. So I
> >think that I'd prefer to have a universal property such as
> >"OnlinePublication" or the like.
> >
> As I already said on the biblio and zotero mailing list:
>
> I think that this should be inferred by the identifier. So, if the
> identifier is bibo:uri, then we know that its an online resource
> and that it can be accessible on the Web. So, such a document, is
> what you would refers to an OnlinePublication.
>
> if the identifier is bibo:isbn10, then you know that it is a
> published document.

I may not getting it here, but how would a software then process an
item that has both an ISBN identifier as well as an URI identifer
that points to an online representation of that document?

Generally, what regards inferring any kind of information implicitly
(instead of stating it explicitly via a property or the like), it's
important to think of real-world scenarios where some information
(such as an ISBN number or an URI) may be missing from the user's
own metadata for a particular item. Processing logic may fail too
easily if too much has to be inferred.


On 30-Jul-07 at 17:09 -0400 Frederick Giasson wrote:

> >>>Speaking of collections, how would one deal with
> >>>Conference/Proceedings volumes? Isn't this a collection as well?
> >>>  
> >>Yeah sure.
> >>
> >>But the question here is: is a proceeding considered a book or a
> >>collection of articles? In fact, its probably a collection of
> >>articles edited as a book :)
> >
> >There is some ambiguity in the distinction between document and
> >collection, and it's illustrated in the case of proceedings,
> >edited books, and so forth. Depending how you define the
> >concepts, they can either be collections or documents (or both!).
> >
> So we should agree and stick to a single definition of the concept
> for the bibliographic ontology.
>
> >My tendency has been to think in terms like libraries think;
> >more about the physical form. So a book is always a document,
> >whether it includes separate items or not.
> >
> Good for me.

I agree that clearly defining the words "collection" and "container"
is important. The lack of a clear definition caused quite some
confusion when discussing this stuff at the Zotero forums:

 <http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/391/hierarchical-item-relationships/>

I wrote there:

  Speaking of "collections" vs "containers", I think we should
  really define what these two words mean for us. I have the
  impression that for some people these two are interchangable words
  for the same thing while for others it's not. So I'd appreciate
  any clarification. Personally, I like Bruce's simple definition of
  a "collection" being a set of multiple items. I.e. a collection is
  always a container for something else. OTOH, a container is not
  necessarily a collection. The prominent example would be an edited
  book which is still a stand-alone item and as such regarded as a
  document. Would other people agree with this thinking?

> >>>In any case, there should be a way to explicitly state that a
> >>>document is "unpublished". Maybe a property "PublicationStatus"
> >>>will do? This would also have the benefit of stating other
> >>>publication status types explicitly.
> >
> >I personally think it's awkward to have to indicate this. Perhaps
> >easier to just use dcterms:issued for the date to do this?
> >
> >What mattes for archival documents is primarily the basic title,
> >creator, etc. and also the archival collection information. You
> >don't really need anything more than that.
>
> Well, for archivist, probably, but what happen if someone else
> need that information?
>
> Its why I don't see the bibliographic ontology only has a citation
> ontology, but as a way to describe documents.

There may be people who need to refer to (e.g. cite) an unpublished
document that is /not/ part of an archive.

If there is a way to mark a document as unpublished (Frederick
mentioned bibo:status and bibo:DocumentStatus), then I'm fine with
it.

Matthias
_____________________________________
Matthias Steffens     [hidden email]
       http://www.extracts.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: document/collection types]

Bruce D'Arcus
Matthias Steffens wrote:

>>> My tendency has been to think in terms like libraries think;
>>> more about the physical form. So a book is always a document,
>>> whether it includes separate items or not.
>>>
>> Good for me.
>
> I agree that clearly defining the words "collection" and "container"
> is important. The lack of a clear definition caused quite some
> confusion when discussing this stuff at the Zotero forums:

Yeah, I know.

Let's try this. I'm going to try to link this into the FRBR world view.

Document: a written, transcribed, or recorded manifestation of a work
typically intended to communicate some intellectual or artistic
information or ideas.

Collection: a collection of documents

By this definition, an edited book or a proceeding both qualify as
documents because those objects are themselves manifestations. OTOH, I
think one could say they also qualify as collections because they each
contain separate documents (unlike, say, an authored book, which only
contains sub-documents parts like chapters).

We could say, then, that edited books and proceedings are both
subclasses of a union of Document and Collection. E.g. they are neither
one nor the other, but both.

Am not sure this actually helps or simply confuses things more!

Bruce

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: document/collection types]

Frederick Giasson
Hi Bruce,

> Yeah, I know.
>
> Let's try this. I'm going to try to link this into the FRBR world view.
>
> Document: a written, transcribed, or recorded manifestation of a work
> typically intended to communicate some intellectual or artistic
> information or ideas.
>
> Collection: a collection of documents
>
> By this definition, an edited book or a proceeding both qualify as
> documents because those objects are themselves manifestations. OTOH, I
> think one could say they also qualify as collections because they each
> contain separate documents (unlike, say, an authored book, which only
> contains sub-documents parts like chapters).
>
> We could say, then, that edited books and proceedings are both
> subclasses of a union of Document and Collection. E.g. they are neither
> one nor the other, but both.
>
>  
so, you are suggesting to create a bibo:EditedBook and to change the
bibo:Proceeding such that they are the subclass of the union of
bibo:Document and bibo:Collection?

This could work, but please describe bibo:EditedBook to make sure that
This is Clear! :)


More thoughts would be needed.

Take care,


Fred

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: document/collection types]

Bruce D'Arcus
Frederick Giasson wrote:

> Hi Bruce,
>> Yeah, I know.
>>
>> Let's try this. I'm going to try to link this into the FRBR world view.
>>
>> Document: a written, transcribed, or recorded manifestation of a work
>> typically intended to communicate some intellectual or artistic
>> information or ideas.
>>
>> Collection: a collection of documents
>>
>> By this definition, an edited book or a proceeding both qualify as
>> documents because those objects are themselves manifestations. OTOH, I
>> think one could say they also qualify as collections because they each
>> contain separate documents (unlike, say, an authored book, which only
>> contains sub-documents parts like chapters).
>>
>> We could say, then, that edited books and proceedings are both
>> subclasses of a union of Document and Collection. E.g. they are
>> neither one nor the other, but both.
>>
>>  
> so, you are suggesting to create a bibo:EditedBook and to change the
> bibo:Proceeding such that they are the subclass of the union of
> bibo:Document and bibo:Collection?

This is what I was floating as essentially a strawman (e.g. I'm not sure
about it), though Proceeding would be a subclass of EditedBook.

> This could work, but please describe bibo:EditedBook to make sure that
> This is Clear! :)

Right. Does anyone else have opinions on this?

Bruce

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: document/collection types]

Leonard Mada-2
In reply to this post by Matthias Steffens
Matthias Steffens wrote:

> On 30-Jul-07 at 15:37 -0400 Frederick Giasson wrote:
>
>  
>>>> Document
>>>>     InternetDocument # I'm [not] convinced we need this as a
>>>>     full type
>>>>        
>>> I agree, especially when one considers that in the future a thesis
>>> or a report (or whatever) may be published online exclusively. So I
>>> think that I'd prefer to have a universal property such as
>>> "OnlinePublication" or the like.
>>>
>>>      
>> As I already said on the biblio and zotero mailing list:
>>
>> I think that this should be inferred by the identifier. So, if the
>> identifier is bibo:uri, then we know that its an online resource
>> and that it can be accessible on the Web. So, such a document, is
>> what you would refers to an OnlinePublication.
>>
>> if the identifier is bibo:isbn10, then you know that it is a
>> published document.
>>    
>
> I may not getting it here, but how would a software then process an
> item that has both an ISBN identifier as well as an URI identifer
> that points to an online representation of that document?
>
> Generally, what regards inferring any kind of information implicitly
> (instead of stating it explicitly via a property or the like), it's
> important to think of real-world scenarios where some information
> (such as an ISBN number or an URI) may be missing from the user's
> own metadata for a particular item. Processing logic may fail too
> easily if too much has to be inferred.
> ...

One small question: many articles are published  ahead of print. Do they
have an ISBN? Or is the ISBN available only after publishing in written
format? Does anyone know more exactly how this EPUB works?

Sincerely,

Leonard

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: document/collection types]

Florian Schlichting-2
> One small question: many articles are published  ahead of print. Do they
> have an ISBN? Or is the ISBN available only after publishing in written
> format? Does anyone know more exactly how this EPUB works?

from talking to the eprints guy at my former university, I understood
that it boils down to the following:

- a publication is any written work that is available to the public. You
  may argue about the poster put up in your neighbourhood, but anything
  freely available via http is definitely published. If you delete your
  website, it has a status similar to a book out of print.

  This has *nothing* do to with academic merit, obviously, but think of
  glossy magazines...

- ISBN and ISSN numbers are a system between publishing houses,
  stockists and book shops to uniquely identify things to be sold. ISBN
  numbers are allocated to publishing houses in bulk, for a minor fee.
  Your university library probably has an allocation and could provide
  you with a number, only that they might be concerned about an
  efficient procedure regarding requests from book shops if they're not
  handling the printing etc themselves.

  Things that have an ISBN number are certainly published, but it would
  be mistaken to infer the opposite regarding works that do not. You can
  put an ISBN number on a PDF you put up on your website, but it makes
  little sense

Florian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: document/collection types]

Frederick Giasson
In reply to this post by Bruce D'Arcus
Hi Bruce,

>>>  
>>>      
>> so, you are suggesting to create a bibo:EditedBook and to change the
>> bibo:Proceeding such that they are the subclass of the union of
>> bibo:Document and bibo:Collection?
>>    
>
> This is what I was floating as essentially a strawman (e.g. I'm not sure
> about it), though Proceeding would be a subclass of EditedBook.
>
>  
Yeah, it would certainly.

But I am not certain that its a good thing to introduce an EditedBook
entity. I would really need a good definition for that call to get
convinced :)


>> This could work, but please describe bibo:EditedBook to make sure that
>> This is Clear! :)
>>    
>
> Right. Does anyone else have opinions on this?
>  

Yup, inputs would be appreciated here.



Take care,


Fred

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]