Re: [Refdb-users] new bibliographic data schema proposal

[Bruce D'A. <bda...@gm...>]

On 4/26/06, Markus Hoenicka <mar...@mh...> wrote:
> Bruce D'Arcus writes:
>  > But notice the difference even in how you describe it using natural
>  > language. There are articles that are published in periodicals
>  > (newspapers, magazines, journals, newsletters). The related type is
>  > not intrinsic to the primary reference type.
>  >
>
> What is your primary reference type here?

Article.

> For me it is newspaperarticle, journalarticle and so on. This is because =
these have
> different content models. E.g. a newspaperarticle reference may
> contain the section that the article appeared in (U.S., world, business,
> arts, sports etc). A journalarticle reference doesn't. Remember that
> the schema was designed to guide the user what data to enter.

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.

>  > But sure, the query to grab the part vs. monographic title is going to
>  > be different when referring to the chapter than it is when referring
>  > to the book it is in. This is only logical; isn't it?
>
> What I was trying to say is this: in your system you have to query for
> a container title if you're interested what book a chapter was
> published in. You have to query for a standalone title if you're
> interested in the book. But in both cases the data relate to the same
> physical book.

The point is that queries are contextual. If I ask for a person's
name, that is a different query than to ask for the name of an author,
even though they are the same person.

> This distinction does not make sense to me. If you want
> a book title, you're asking for monographic data, regardless of
> whether that book contains chapters or is part of a series.

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.

>  > E.g. you say to someone "look at the chapter titled 'abc' in the book
>  > called 'xyz'." You don't say "look at analytical title 'abc' that has
>  > a monographic title 'xyz'."
>
> But the meaning is equivalent (as every librarian could
> witness). Whereas it is utmost confusing if you tell someone "look at
> the item 'xyz' unless it is a book that contains chapters. In that
> case, look at the container 'xyz' which will contain the item
> 'abc'". This just allows you to make the same errors like RIS in a
> much more sophisticated way.

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) }

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.

Bruce