Talk:ESciDoc Application Profile Publication
Revision as of 12:56, 17 September 2008 by Inga (talk | contribs) (→dc:creator versus dc:contributor & the usage of creator role)
General[edit]
- String data type definition
- Question: Is the given definition appropriate?
- Robert: "Ein string kann doch enthalten was er will, nur wenn er in xml kommt muss man halt escapen. In dem Fall Metadata description mit xml syntax vermischt"
Describing a publication[edit]
Genre[edit]
Creator & Contributor[edit]
- Author, which we want to use dc:creator for, is also defined as a MARCREL (see refinements below), but then as a refinement from dc:contributor.
- Painter does not exist as MARCREL.
- dc:creator is used against DC semantics. Two options:
- introduce the understanding of "primary creator" to pubman (-> could be stored in dc:creator)
- use the dc:contributor element + role (re-use from loc)
dc:creator versus dc:contributor & the usage of creator role[edit]
Please note that the following section is the documentation of a decision process vibrating between several options, but without result until today:
- There is a proposal from LOC to use the MARCREL relators both, in dc:creator and dc:contributor: http://www.loc.gov/marc/dc/Agent-roles.html; However, the proposal is from 2002 and I have no information wether or not is was ever implemented that way --Andreas Gros 09:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was implemented that way here: http://richard.cyganiak.de/2003/xml/publishing/
- And also OCLC proposed it at some point: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/mswitch/1_gem-marc.htm --Andreas Gros 09:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- The OLAC Role Vocabulary from 2006 also recommends refinement of dc:creator and dc:contributor: http://www.language-archives.org/REC/role.html. From the abstract:
[...] (Please note that Dublin Core now discourages the use of the Creator element, recommending that all Role information be associated with Contributor elements.)[...]
- I looked up the example of MARC-Relators and found out that most of these relators redefine dc:contributor and not dc:creator. In fact, MARCREL:CRE (creator) is the only refinement of dc:creator (compare http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/loc.terms/relators/dc-relators.html). Even "MARCREL:Author" is a refinement of dc:contributor. Do we have to define our own eSciDoc:author that refines "creator" to use it as a creator-role? (see http://memory.loc.gov/cocoon/loc.terms/relators/dc-relators.html) -- Andreas Gros 14:43, 31 March 2008 (CEST)
- What is our understanding of the property "creator"? Do we actually mean "contributor" with different roles? Do we use creator for "the main or leading author"?
Recommendation from meeting with Natasa, Ulla, Malte, Andi, Inga: Replace dc:creator by dc:contributor.
- Just to remark:
- dc:contributor - An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource.
- dc:creator - An entity primarily responsible for making the resource. Frank 08:51, 11 March 2008 (CET)
- Currently, the pubman metadata schema not complies with the distinction between "primarily responsible" and "contributed" made by dc. We only have entities (persons/organizations) which participated in content generation and their specific role (e.g. author, editor, etc.). It was argued that all pubman creators with type "author" are dc:creators and pubman creators of any other type are dc:contributors. Two contra arguments:
- for proceedings and edited books, a creator of type "editor" is probably the entity primarily responsible for making the resource
- for journal articles with more than a handful of authors it's quite reasonable that not all of them has been primarily responsible for the publication (see edoc example). But the person entering the record in PubMan does not necessarily know which creators are dc:creators in the core sense (as we understood it now) and which are not. In addition, we have no use case which requires the distinction introduced by Dublin Core
BTW: As you can see in the edoc example provided above, the authors are not listed alphabetically, but the order encodes their importance for this paper, see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071105103938.htm. Please note that we will consider mapping the first creator to dc:creator for transformations to dc simple. --Inga 20:19, 11 March 2008 (CET)
- Traugott made the point, that we must not over-interpret the dc comment on primarily responsible. The standard use case is that each author of a paper is a dc:creator, no matter how important they were in creating the article. Each creator can be given a corresponding creatorrole. The cases in which contributors are used should follow best-practices, like:
- Most importantly, using dc:contributor as a replacement for dc:creator would decouple eSciDoc from most external search-engines because the common property to be looked up when searching for an author is dc:creator and not dc:contributor.
- It fine for me to use esciDoc specific creator element with roles (this is what we are currently practicing). Does anybody expect us to provide a more detailed mapping (e.g. an illustrator of an article is dc:contributor but no dc:creator)? --Inga 10:28, 13 March 2008 (CET)
- Another proposal: Let's use dc:creator as well as dc:contributor and map all creators which are specified to be the author (MARCREL:AUT) to dc:creator (without refinement) and all other creators to dc:contributor (with refinements after MARCREL and more if required). Anyway, this would require us from removing the "obligatory" for dc:creators... --Inga 11:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Missing roles[edit]
- For dc:contributor: Besides the MARC relators we use, eDoc additionally uses "Archivist", "Preservator", and "Referee" as contributor-roles. Shall we add them as eSciDoc-relators?
- We currently try to avoid "Archivist" and "Preservator". In addition, it could be that eDoc's "Referee" is semantically identical to Marc's Reviewer (http://www.loc.gov/loc.terms/relators/REV). Note: The role "Referee" is used by 136 public entries on eDoc, the most of them are Thesis, PHD-Thesis and Dissertations. --Inga 12:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Title[edit]
Alternative Title[edit]
Language[edit]
Identifier[edit]
PublishingInfo[edit]
Publisher[edit]
Place[edit]
Edition[edit]
Created[edit]
Modified[edit]
Date Submitted[edit]
Date Accepted[edit]
Issued Online[edit]
Issued[edit]
Status[edit]
Source[edit]
- dc:source is used against DC semantics and should be changed to "isPartOf". In addition, the element bibliographicCitation has been created to improve interoperability (should be available twice: maschine-readable as well as human-readable). See also: Guidelines for Encoding Bibliographic Citation Information in Dublin Core Metadata (comment from the eSciDoc Application Profiles Discussion page; user unknown).
Event[edit]
- C-DOC CRM standard event element?
Total number of pages[edit]
Bibligraphic Citation[edit]
Academic Degree[edit]
Abstract[edit]
Subject[edit]
Vocabulary:
- Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC).
- An overview on the first three levels is available in Wikipedia (= DDC 22 Summaries)
- DDC 22 Summaries can be downloaded and used via OCLC ResearchWorks after accepting the terms and conditions (T&C), see http://www.oclc.org/research/researchworks/ddc/terms.htm
- Further DDC services (e.g. print copy, access to WebDewey) need to be licensed. The pricing can be found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/forms/pdf/dfwpro.pdf
- Library of Congress Classification (LCC)
Discussion:
- Traugott strongly suggests to use DDC, because it is the only system adapted to online usage and which is maintained and enhanced continuously. It is also fine-grained enough to allow the classification of a large number of documents, so that not too many documents end up in the same class.