Re: xbiblio-devel digest, Vol 1 #59 - 2 msgs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: xbiblio-devel digest, Vol 1 #59 - 2 msgs

Matthias Steffens
Hi Bruce,

On May 14 2005 at 10:49 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> The structure of MODS and of CSL assumes that the publication date
> for a journal article is basically a property of the journal,
> rather than the article.

Does valid MODS assume or require this? I.e., are both of your
examples valid MODS:

On 15 May 2005 at 20:25 -0700 Bruce wrote:

>     <mods ID="darcusb2005">
[...]
>        <relatedItem type="host">
[...]
>           <part>
>              <date>2005-05-01</date>
>           </part>
>        </relatedItem>
>     </mods>
>
> .... or:
>
>     <mods ID="darcusb2005">
[...]
>          <originInfo>
>             <dateIssued>2005-05-01</dateIssued>
>          </originInfo>
[...]
>        <relatedItem type="host">
[...]
>        </relatedItem>
>     </mods>
>
> Am not sure which I prefer.

I definitely prefer the latter for the reasons James mentioned.

Generally, I would prefer the following rule:

All information that's unique for a given resource should be on that
resource's own level while information that's only unique to the
related container item should go into the container item.

IMHO, this assumption should make it *a lot* easier for developers to
find and associate things within the MODS hierarchy.

On 14 May 2005 at 20:26 -0700 James Howison wrote:

> What about reprinted articles in containers later (ie collected
> volumes of classic papers).  those would need two dates, wouldn't
> they

Yes. Having multiple dates on several levels should be actually a
*feature* of MODS so that it can handle such complexity. Using the
above assumption, the date on top level would describe the date when
the original article was published, while the date in the 'related >
host' item is the date of the book volume.

If no date on top level is given for an article, this would mean that
the article was originally published together with the book/journal.
In other words, if there's no top level date the top level item would
inherit the date of the container item.

Besides dates, the same problem exist for editors and 'extent >
pages'. I.e., instead of:

<mods ID="Ackley1990">
   <titleInfo>
      <title>Snow cover effects on Antarctic sea ice thickness</title>
   </titleInfo>
   <name type="personal">
      <namePart type="family">Ackley</namePart>
      <namePart type="given">S</namePart>
      <role>
         <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
      </role>
   </name>
   <name type="personal">
      <namePart type="family">Weeks</namePart>
      <namePart type="given">W</namePart>
      <role>
         <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
      </role>
   </name>
[...]
   <relatedItem type="host">
      <titleInfo>
         <title>Sea ice properties and processes - Proceedings of the
                W.F. Weeks Sea Ice Symposium</title>
      </titleInfo>
[...]
      <genre authority="marc">book</genre>
      <part>
         <extent unit="page">
            <start>16</start>
            <end>21</end>
         </extent>
      </part>
   </relatedItem>
</mods>


I would prefer:

<mods ID="Ackley1990">
   <titleInfo>
      <title>Snow cover effects on Antarctic sea ice thickness</title>
   </titleInfo>
   <name type="personal">
      <namePart type="family">Ackley</namePart>
      <namePart type="given">S</namePart>
      <role>
         <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
      </role>
   </name>
[...]
   <physicalDescription>
         <extent unit="page">
            <start>16</start>
            <end>21</end>
         </extent>
   </physicalDescription>
   <relatedItem type="host">
      <titleInfo>
         <title>Sea ice properties and processes</title>
      </titleInfo>
      <name type="personal">
         <namePart type="family">Weeks</namePart>
         <namePart type="given">W</namePart>
         <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
         </role>
      </name>
[...]
      <genre authority="marc">book</genre>
      <part>
         <extent unit="page">
            <total>299</total>
         </extent>
      </part>
   </relatedItem>
</mods>

Note that in the latter example, the book editor is given *within*
the 'related > host' item and not on top level (which is far more
intuitive, IMHO). Plus, the top level contains the page range of the
individual article while the 'related > host' item contains the total
number of pages for the book.

Matthias
______________________________________________
Matthias Steffens   ----   [hidden email]

refbase --- a web-based, platform-independent,
multi-user application for managing scientific
     literature, references and citations    

            http://www.refbase.net


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

re:dates

Bruce D'Arcus
On May 16, 2005, at 6:11 AM, Matthias Steffens wrote:

> On May 14 2005 at 10:49 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
>> The structure of MODS and of CSL assumes that the publication date
>> for a journal article is basically a property of the journal,
>> rather than the article.
>
> Does valid MODS assume or require this? I.e., are both of your
> examples valid MODS:

Both are valid, and discussion on MODS list awhile back ended up with
no consensus.

> Generally, I would prefer the following rule:
>
> All information that's unique for a given resource should be on that
> resource's own level while information that's only unique to the
> related container item should go into the container item.
>
> IMHO, this assumption should make it *a lot* easier for developers to
> find and associate things within the MODS hierarchy.

Yes, I understand this.  It's just that this is one of the funny places
in bibliographic metadata and citation practice where the proper
"level" is just not clear.

> Yes. Having multiple dates on several levels should be actually a
> *feature* of MODS so that it can handle such complexity. Using the
> above assumption, the date on top level would describe the date when
> the original article was published, while the date in the 'related >
> host' item is the date of the book volume.

Actually, it gets a little more complicated.  IIRC (I've not looked at
it in awhile) MODS has a way to code a relatedItem that is the original
publication.  So you could have still another level.

> If no date on top level is given for an article, this would mean that
> the article was originally published together with the book/journal.
> In other words, if there's no top level date the top level item would
> inherit the date of the container item.

This is sort of what I'm thinking.

> I would prefer:
>
> <mods ID="Ackley1990">
>    <titleInfo>
>       <title>Snow cover effects on Antarctic sea ice thickness</title>
>    </titleInfo>
>    <name type="personal">
>       <namePart type="family">Ackley</namePart>
>       <namePart type="given">S</namePart>
>       <role>
>          <roleTerm authority="marcrelator"
> type="text">author</roleTerm>
>       </role>
>    </name>
> [...]
>    <physicalDescription>
>          <extent unit="page">
>             <start>16</start>
>             <end>21</end>
>          </extent>
>    </physicalDescription>
>    <relatedItem type="host">
>       <titleInfo>
>          <title>Sea ice properties and processes</title>
>       </titleInfo>
>       <name type="personal">
>          <namePart type="family">Weeks</namePart>
>          <namePart type="given">W</namePart>
>          <role>
>             <roleTerm authority="marcrelator"
> type="text">editor</roleTerm>
>          </role>
>       </name>
> [...]
>       <genre authority="marc">book</genre>
>       <part>
>          <extent unit="page">
>             <total>299</total>
>          </extent>
>       </part>
>    </relatedItem>
> </mods>
>
> Note that in the latter example, the book editor is given *within*
> the 'related > host' item and not on top level (which is far more
> intuitive, IMHO).

Yes, you've got it right.

> Plus, the top level contains the page range of the
> individual article while the 'related > host' item contains the total
> number of pages for the book.

This is off, though.  You're right to note this is another awkward area
though.  Pages are in the mods:relatedItem[@type='host']/mods:part.

In truth, this sort of "locator" information is somewhere between the
main level and the container level, and is difficult to represent
cleanly.  In CSL, I follow MODS convention, in part because I think it
better reflects formatting practice.  I''ve considered changing it
though.

Bruce



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

re:dates

Matthias Steffens
On 16.05.2005 at 7:43 -0400 Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> On May 16, 2005, at 6:11 AM, Matthias Steffens wrote:
>
> > On May 14 2005 at 10:49 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> >> The structure of MODS and of CSL assumes that the publication
> >> date for a journal article is basically a property of the
> >> journal, rather than the article.
> >
> > Does valid MODS assume or require this?
>
> Both are valid, and discussion on MODS list awhile back ended up
> with no consensus.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. For refbase we ended up to output
<dateIssued> on both levels, main and host.

> > Having multiple dates on several levels should be actually a
> > *feature* of MODS so that it can handle such complexity. Using
> > the above assumption, the date on top level would describe the
> > date when the original article was published, while the date in
> > the 'related > host' item is the date of the book volume.
>
> Actually, it gets a little more complicated.  IIRC (I've not looked
> at it in awhile) MODS has a way to code a relatedItem that is the
> original publication.  So you could have still another level.

Hmm, good point. I see that my above assumption may get confusing and
that a proper way of encoding that sort of information (using
<relatedItem type="original"> may be clearer since it avoids any
ambiguities.

Btw, I see that you used <originInfo><dateIssued> for the top level
but used <part><date> instead for the host level:

On 15 May 2005 at 20:25 -0700 Bruce wrote:
>     <mods ID="darcusb2005">
[...]
>        <relatedItem type="host">
[...]
>           <part>
>              <date>2005-05-01</date>
>           </part>
>        </relatedItem>
>     </mods>
>
> .... or:
>
>     <mods ID="darcusb2005">
[...]
>          <originInfo>
>             <dateIssued>2005-05-01</dateIssued>
>          </originInfo>
[...]
>        <relatedItem type="host">
[...]
>        </relatedItem>
>     </mods>

For refbase we use <originInfo><dateIssued> in both cases and use
<part> only for volume/issue/pages information. I assume that is
equally valid? Re-reading the description of MODS elements on the
MODS project page I don't really understand if there's any difference
between the two.

> > I would prefer:
> >
> > <mods ID="Ackley1990">
> >    <titleInfo>
> >       <title>Snow cover effects on Antarctic sea ice thickness</title>
> >    </titleInfo>
> >    <name type="personal">
> >       <namePart type="family">Ackley</namePart>
> >       <namePart type="given">S</namePart>
> >       <role>
> >          <roleTerm authority="marcrelator"
> > type="text">author</roleTerm>
> >       </role>
> >    </name>
> > [...]
> >    <physicalDescription>
> >          <extent unit="page">
> >             <start>16</start>
> >             <end>21</end>
> >          </extent>
> >    </physicalDescription>
> >    <relatedItem type="host">
> >       <titleInfo>
> >          <title>Sea ice properties and processes</title>
> >       </titleInfo>
> >       <name type="personal">
> >          <namePart type="family">Weeks</namePart>
> >          <namePart type="given">W</namePart>
> >          <role>
> >             <roleTerm authority="marcrelator"
> > type="text">editor</roleTerm>
> >          </role>
> >       </name>
> > [...]
> >       <genre authority="marc">book</genre>
> >       <part>
> >          <extent unit="page">
> >             <total>299</total>
> >          </extent>
> >       </part>
> >    </relatedItem>
> > </mods>
> >
> > Note that in the latter example, the book editor is given *within*
> > the 'related > host' item and not on top level (which is far more
> > intuitive, IMHO).
>
> Yes, you've got it right.

refbase does currently output any book editor(s) on top level (and
bibutils seems to recognize it just fine) but I think we should
modify output similar to the above example.

> > Plus, the top level contains the page range of the individual
> > article while the 'related > host' item contains the total number
> > of pages for the book.
>
> This is off, though.  You're right to note this is another awkward area
> though.  Pages are in the mods:relatedItem[@type='host']/mods:part.

Yes, and that's how refbase currently outputs it. I can live with the
current MODS implementation. But specifying pages information (which
is unique for a given article) on top level would be more intuitive to
me, though.

> In truth, this sort of "locator" information is somewhere between
> the main level and the container level, and is difficult to
> represent cleanly.

Hmm yes, that's a valid point and I agree that valid arguements can
be made for both levels.

Thanks for your clarifications,

Matthias


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

re:dates

Bruce D'Arcus
On Mon, 16 May 2005 15:05:18 +0200, "Matthias Steffens"
<[hidden email]> said:

> Ok, thanks for the clarification. For refbase we ended up to output
> <dateIssued> on both levels, main and host.

That's reasonable.

FYI, the XSLT logic for date handling in citeproc is to take the first
present date among a list:

dateIssued (main level)
dateIssued (host level)
date (host level)
 
> Btw, I see that you used <originInfo><dateIssued> for the top level
> but used <part><date> instead for the host level:

Yes.  Again, useage is not quite clear, but I was working with the idea
that the date is specific to the issue of the journal (which is what
part is designed to cover), rather than the journal per se.
 
> For refbase we use <originInfo><dateIssued> in both cases and use
> <part> only for volume/issue/pages information. I assume that is
> equally valid? Re-reading the description of MODS elements on the
> MODS project page I don't really understand if there's any difference
> between the two.

You're reading of it all is reasonable.

> refbase does currently output any book editor(s) on top level (and
> bibutils seems to recognize it just fine) but I think we should
> modify output similar to the above example.

Yes, dates are not always clear, but I'd say your current practice on
editors is umbiguously wrong :-)

> > > Plus, the top level contains the page range of the individual
> > > article while the 'related > host' item contains the total number
> > > of pages for the book.
> >
> > This is off, though.  You're right to note this is another awkward area
> > though.  Pages are in the mods:relatedItem[@type='host']/mods:part.
>
> Yes, and that's how refbase currently outputs it. I can live with the
> current MODS implementation. But specifying pages information (which
> is unique for a given article) on top level would be more intuitive to
> me, though.

To me it's awkward in both cases.  But if you look at citation practice,
page numbers and grouped with volume and issue numbers, which are
similar to document numbers. So there is some logic to it.
 
> Thanks for your clarifications,

Sure thing!

Bruce