Leonard Mada wrote:
My real concern is, that, if the category 'document' is set too large,
so that everything fits in it, than what is the purpose of this category?
As a) a fallback for resources that aren't explicitly supported, and b)
because other types subclass it.
Bruce
--
Gannon Dick wrote:
Had to put my 2 cents here ...
Leonard, very good point but might it be better to use Evidence Basis
(ala' Evidence Based Medicine, Evidence Based Health Care, Evidence
Based Librarianship, etc.) as a Property of the resource no matter what
form or source the resource takes ?
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
Leonard Mada wrote:
...
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 categor
Hi,
on another note, I have some questions regarding the following scenario:
Lets consider someone wants to review some movies (or some other AV-material).
[e.g. Roger Ebert wants to write a new movie guide ;-) ]
How does he cite the movies?
Should a special Audio-Video category exist? As more
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.
Su
> Book # do we need a separate class for edited books?
In years of using EndNote, I solved many problems by having two distinct
types, Book and Edited Book (= Edited book of essays by multiple authors,
not just a book with an editor). I don't now remember all the difficulties,
only that befo
Had to put my 2 cents here ...
Leonard, very good point but might it be better to use Evidence Basis
(ala' Evidence Based Medicine, Evidence Based Health Care, Evidence
Based Librarianship, etc.) as a Property of the resource no matter what
form or source the resource takes ?
--- Leonard Mada <[EM
Leonard Mada wrote:
...
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
d
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
document
Matthias,
Matthias Basler wrote:
Von: Bruce D\'Arcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a little tricky. I think if I have a book review in a
newspaper, then perhaps it ought to be typed as both an Article and
a Review?
Reviews can be issued in different forms, including broadcast on
the radio.
Wh
Von: Bruce D\'Arcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is a little tricky. I think if I have a book review in a newspaper,
> then perhaps it ought to be typed as both an Article and a Review?
>
> Reviews can be issued in different forms, including broadcast on the
> radio.
Which makes me think ...
...
James Howison wrote:
How would a book review fit into this?
Good question. I think that's dropped out somewhere.
Jstor for example makes this a
separate type, with specific data for a reviewed article etc. One could
imagine having a collection of reviewed articles.
This is a little tricky
How would a book review fit into this? Jstor for example makes this a
separate type, with specific data for a reviewed article etc. One
could imagine having a collection of reviewed articles.
Yes, one could also just do this in the title field as people gave
done for years.
I guess that l
13 matches
Mail list logo
