Frederick Giasson wrote:
So, a document could have more than one status, and one of them could be bibo_status:peerReviewed. Is it what you have in mind?
Exactly!
But the description of such a status should be well defined to make sure that it reflects exactly the discussion we had here.
Sure.
However, this doesn't remove the case that we can, in some case, infer that a document is peer-reviewed by checking the reviewOf properties linking to a document entity.
You can't though. That property is a different kind of review; a public commentary on already published work.
"Peer-reviewing" is a really narrow kind of practice that is part of the gate-keeping of academia. If you get bad reviews, you don't even get to publish.
Bruce: should we add the property now that I think it is an essential one?
Definitely. We might also consider whether we need other similar relations (commentaryOn, etc.).
Bruce --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
