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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.extracts.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
