Preliminary descriptive Metadata
For the selection of the descriptive metadata the main focus has been set on the minimum level of information that is needed to disambiguate entities. The list of descriptive metadata elements is extendable by new elements.
- Journal title 
The name of the journal (e.g. "Journal of the ACM")
- Alternative title [0-n]
Any alternative name or abbreviation of the journal
- Remark Inga: Tagging of abbreviations as such? Indicating the origin of abbreviation if known? see below
- Publisher [0-n?]
The name of the institution that publishes the journal
- Identifier [0-n]
Any external identifier (e.g. ISSN, EZB-ID, ZDB-ID)
Schema has to be indicated
- Locator [0-1?]
Locator of the authority file source
- Question Inga: Do we mean an URL pointing to the record?
- Rights [0-n]
Statement on open access availability
- Subject [0-n]
Subject/domain field of the journal
on Journal Abbreviations
Sabine and Traugott:
We do not see a need for tagging the acronyms of e.g. journal titles. The functionality that if an depositor fills in the acronym of a journal title and the full title should then be filled in automatically by the system can - in our opinion - also be provided if the acronym of the journal is stored in the title or alternative title element. The only scenario when tagging might be required is if we would like to generate lists of e.g. journal title acronyms but this can also be done by using "Woerterbuecher" etc.
- Comment Natasa: Additional vocabularies are again another level of complexity to my understanding (if I understood your message right :) . My proposal is to see what e.g. ZDB offers /if they offer abbreviations clearly separated from journal names - then we already have sources to do it in our system and clearly "tag" what is abbreviation and what is an alternative name/. [Comment Inga:] I would like to support this idea: Let's get/fetch/use the information if it's available.
[Comment Natasa:] Yes, will be done.
- Comment Inga: Another use case is the generation of reference lists following a citation style which "expects" journal abbreviation, e.g. the ACS citation style.
- Comment Traugott: this seems very ambitious to me, yet another piece of information we would need to control in an authority list maintained by escidoc, most probably via storing all the data locally. As all authority lists, creating, de-duplicating, including disambiguation information, validating and maintaining it, is a huge job. To my experience, acronyms are much worse than e.g. journal titles or place names. Sometimes they are even part of the official title of the journal.
In case we wouldn't hold a very rich list of different disciplines and journal communities acronyms, quite often several for the same journal, entering an acronym would result in only a wrong full title being displayed or the wrong acronym added to the citation information. For reference lists and citations (acc. to different styles), authors would very much like to see their (community's) own acronym, I assume. In many cases, they might not know which this is, even if we would be able to display several alternatives.
The main problem we see is that it is most likely that for one journal title more than one acronym is in use and that one acronym might be used for more than one journal, hence acronyms are not unambiguous. [Comment Inga:] ... and unfortunately journal titles are not unambiguous as well! This has to be taken into consideration when offering the functionality that the depositor fills in an acronym and the system provides the full title. So the depositor has to check if the right full title has been filled in or he/she has to select the full title out of a list of potential "right" full titles.
- Comment Natasa: To my understanding of course this should be the case. The metadata in the item are populated with journal name and not with the journal abbreviation. When user tries to enter part of journal abbreviation or journal name the system should offer a list of names of journals (i.e. list of journals which have this exact or similar abbreviation or part of the journal name) - only from this list the user selects the appropriare journal name and the metadata are filled in correctly.
Would that be fine?
- Comment Inga: Yes, this is required! If a lookup returns more than one journal object, the user needs to explicitly select one journal. In this case, the publisher information is probably a necessary piece of information. [Comment Natasa]: OK, agreed then!
on Rights statement
Using rights statement for journals
Update on <rights>: as there is no requirement from Christoph/Anja for rights statements on journal level, we can choose whatever provider/Whatever information. I would opt for DOAJ, as it gives at least clear indication, which journals are OA, although no information on "Green" road publishers. disadvantage romeo/sherpa: indicates on publisher level, but not on journal level.--Ulla 16:16, 11 January 2008 (CET)
Requirement: The information collected under PubMan OA Statistics provide no clear picture for what kind of request the right statements are required. Is the goal either to receive the information if specific articles are open access or if the journal supports oa-publishing (for all articles? for some articles? via author-pays model?). We probably should avoid to include rights information until we have a clearer picture. --Inga 17:38, 18 January 2008 (CET)
Values: How do we populate i.e. what value has the rights metadata in the journal if the journal is OA (in accordance with DOAJ? (there are statements like: http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempl&templ=faq#definition)--Natasa 15:41, 18 January 2008 (CET)
An overview on OA levels is provided in the wikipedia article on Open access journals:
|1||Journals entirely open access||gold||DOAJ|
|2||Journals with research articles open access||??||no source|
|3||Journals with some research articles open access||??||no source|
|4||Journals with some articles open access and the other delayed access||??||no source|
|5||Journals with delayed open access||??||no source|
|6||Journals permitting self-archiving of articles.||green||sherpa/RoMEO|
Some thoughts on DOAJ
- DOAJ is a directory of open access scientific and scholarly journals. Each month new journals are added and existing journals are deleted from the repository. Therefore, rights information from DOAJ need to be updated regularly. Note: The oai-pmh repository does not maintain information about deletions.
- By definition, DOAJ does not list journals which use embargo periods (e.g. many Highwire journals) or which only provide parts of their content under oa condition (e.g. some BMC journals or backfiles with costs?).
- Therefore: DOAJ can be used to check if an journal is "on the golden road to OA". According to the DOAJ definition, this information could be escalated to all articles published in the journal. To avoid continuous updates, the information may rather be fetched dynamically than physically stored in pubman. If no information is available, this does not necessarily mean that the journal does not provide OA articles.