 |
 |
On 11/22/05, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Bruce, I thought I had explained in my message why the method that you > suggest does not work. However, it might be better explained by someone > with some good, juicy examples from the reality of serials issuance. Anyone? Sorry, am rather distracted today with a ton of things, so no doubt missed some nuance. I've also not come across any examples where "levels" are particularly meaningful in citations, so conveniently passed that over ;-) However, in any case, I do think we need to find a simpler example than your "simple" example. One thing I have come around to over the past bit of time is that it's essential that our metadata models and formats be easier to work with for non-experts; both those who would create the metadata, and those who would write tools to consume it. It's hard enough to convince people to even do decent DC. I realize my example is problamatic because I use the term "number" when we could be talking about, say, <ex:part>B</ex:part>. But could you imagine achieving the same effect without having to use terms like "levels" or "enumerations"? Even if different journals were to use "part" inconsistently, does it really matter, either for citations, or for finding the correct item? BTW, in RDF, one tends to takea a different tack than this approach of having generic metadata structures (say "enumeration"), with specific modifiers (a type attribute). Instead, one would define specific structures, and then if you need to say that, for example, volume and issue are both kinds of enumerations, one would define that in the ontology (above the XML in effect). Bruce