I'd like to echo this.
If we have a pointer fully-populated authority control record for
publisher, adding location of publication is redundant at best and
misleading at worst.
cheers
stuart
On 15/08/14 05:46, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm arriving late to this party but hopefully not too late to throw in my 2 öre...
>
> When we talk about using URIs to identify places, we need to be careful what kind of places we talk about. If we want to specify that a publication is about a specific place (e. g. a guide book to London (Ontario)), a URI for London (Ontario) is perfectly fine.
>
> If we -- however -- talk about place names in publication statements, URIs (or geographic coordinates) may or may not be useful. For a C17 publication with the (fictive) publication statement "published by John Nicholson in the High Street at the sign of the lantern and printed by Jeremiah McTavish in the Lower Mile" it is clear that the two places mentioned are the locations where the publication (preparation of manuscript etc.) and the printing took place. We can replace those two with URIs or geographic coordinates.
>
> Publication statements by modern scientific publishers sometimes mention a whole range of place names, as in "Heidelberg, Berlin, New York, Tokyo, München: Very-Big-Scientific-Publisher, 2012". I'm still not sure if this means that
>
> 1) the book was published in all those places (at the same time?), or if it means that
> 2) it was published by the Very-Big-Scientific-Publisher and that the publisher has offices in all those places.
>
> My gut feeling is that it really means 2) and that we really cannot say that the book was published in http://dbpedia.org/data/Berlin, http://dbpedia.org/data/Tokyo or any of the other places. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
>
> Best,
>
> Lars
>
> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
>
|