Hi,
without having understood all the comments, let me emphasize some little
points which have been probably overlooked.
Basically, as pointed in another post, the collections seem to admix
medium with document type.
Regarding document type, there are broadly 2 large categories of
documents, and therefore I am strongly against some of the droppibngs:
A. Peer-Reviewed Documents
B. NON-Peer-Reviewed Documents
So, you cannot mix everything in the article category, there are really
different things:
A. Peer-Reviewed
=============
This is basically the article and many more standard documents.
B. NON-Peer-Reviewed
=================
[Some structure is still needed as I mix medium with document type, too.]
1. Book
2. Periodicals
2.1.Newspaper article (else like an article)
2.2. Non-peer reviewed journal article (else like an article) or Magazine
2.2'. Exclusively Online Journal (non-peer reviewed)
3. Internet page (NOT really like an article)
[some peer-reviewed articles are published exclusively on the net, BUT
those do NOT fit in this category]
4. Letter (true letter)
5. Personal communication [includes phone/ whatever communication]
6. many other types
6.1 Manuscript
7. Specialized Types
7.1 Court / Law
7.2 Patents
QUESTION
=========
Should 'Book'also be split into more categories:
a.) non-peer reviewed book (e.g. a novel, single author, whatever else)
b.) speciality book with an editor => therefore peer-reviewed
c.) anything else NOT easily fitting in the previous 2 categories
I will think more thoroughly about the problem tomorrow. Though,
recognising the 2 main categories, aka *peer-reviewed* vs *non
peer-reviewed*, is critical because every scientist will put so much
different weight into these different types of evidence.
Sincerely,
Leonard
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
Frederick Giasson wrote:
Hi Bruce,
Also, I think we probably need a literal property that allows people
to give a little more information when the type itself can't convey it.
So this is the hierarchy, with my comments:
Collection
InternetSite
Series
Periodical
Journal
Magazine # we might drop this, or add Newspaper
CourtReporter
Would drop InternetSite as we dropper WebPage.
Am fine with that. So how would we represent a weblog post?
Would drop Magazine and not adding Newspaper. In fact, the question
is: is there a difference (in terms of descriptiveness) between a
newspaper and a journal? or a magazine and a periodical (some type of
restrictions applied only to that type of collection).
Not really. But the differences are otherwise important (for search,
formatting perhaps, etc.).
Also, the CourtReporter thing (and all Law documentations related
classes and properties) should be re-thinked, extended and possibly
put in a specialized (Law) extension module to bibo. What you think?
I think we need to provide the basics but provide room for extension.
It's just a question of how best to provide those basics.
# How to deal with multi-volume books?
# I guess could just use generic Collection?
Document
InternetDocument # I'm convinced we need this as a full type
What convinced you? (related to our recent discussion on the bibo
mailing list).
Oops, typo. I meant to add "not."
Article
LegalCase # need input from lawyers here; not happy with this
Brief
Decision
As I said above, I would create a module of its own for Law related
Things.
Manuscript # I suggest dropping
Why?
It's just an unpublished document, which may be held in an archive. In
general, I think people who work with manuscripts would agree with me.
Elena, you there?
Book # do we need a separate class for edited books?
Well, since bibo is rooted at the Manifestation (frbr) level, a Book
is not an edited book by definition?
I was thinking EditedBook as subclass of Book, though I have no strong
opinion if this is a good idea. Am just asking.
Proceeding
Booklet # I HATE this vestige from BibTeX; let's cut it
Let it go then.
Manual
Legislation # need help here too
Patent
Report
TechnicalReport # is this important?
Don't think so.
Thesis
Dissertation
Transcript
Interview
Note # maybe it shouldn't be a subclass of Document?
Well, good question. What it would be? I think that a Note is a
document by considering that it is a writing of information. And I
think that it should have its own class since it is restricted to a
single author.
But from the application angle, a note is really different; something
like a tag in the sense of user-defined annotation of bibliographic
source (documents).
So obvious stuff we're missing beyond comments above?
No way to indicate letters, memos, phone conversations, etc.
Transcript might be problematic.
Letters is more problematic. Memos are sort of notes; are they? Phone
conversations are transcripts.
Not really. If I cite a phone conversation, there's no transcript
typically.
And in what sense Transcript is problematic?
It's just that the communication itself might be more significant than
the document characteristic (might be absent).
The Zotero guys wanted to treat communication as a separate class. E.g.
Communication
EMail
Letter
Memo
etc.
Well, not sure here since all documents have a communication goal. If
I write a book, or if I write this email, in both cases I want to
communicate something. So I am not really sure that its a good way to
go.
This is indeed the problem.
We could say a Communication involves sender/author and recipient;
often called a PersonalCommunication?
Broadcasts?
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
