[uf-discuss] [citation]: Brian's outstanding issues 2:

[Ross Singer]

On 9/25/06, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, but again: I don't think type is necessary for resolution. If I
> have a URL, that's enough. If I have a DOI or an ISBN represented as a
> URI, then also enough.
>
Well, if you have an identifier like this, that's all you need for
OpenURL resolution, as well, so we're set :)

The problem you run into is with 'ambiguous' stuff such as conference
proceedings (both ISSN and ISBN) -- the more can help out the
resolver, the easier it is to make the connection.

> And when you deal with archival documents and such that I sometimes
> deal with, they typically aren't web resolvable; at all.
>
Well, for now, possibly.  I think this needs to be the next frontier
of EAD, actually.  It's not enough to have a manifest of what's in a
drawer or box, we need to be able to find it from a bibliography.
We'll probably need to take this to some other list, though.


> That would be a reasonable option, though I'd also suggest a more
> generic "document" fallback (because real world citation practice just
> doesn't fit pre-defined boxes). Also, *if* you have a container typed
> as a "journal" then you also need a broader "periodical."
>
Well, periodical is fine... it could be mapped to journal (and
monograph to book -- I mean, that seems like the logical analogy).
The labels aren't that important as long as we can kind of match them
(and, no doubt, OpenURL is an inexact science).  I don't know, there
seems to be a balance that can be struck -- universality vs. immediate
functionality (and I think some balance needs to be struck in both
directions).
> > (and it's actually
> > trivial to add other formats if necessary -- yes, that's an open
> > invitation to you, Bruce ;)).
>
> Only so many hours in a day Ross ;-)
>

**GASP**
> You can get a sense of what I consider important by looking at my RDF schema:
>
> <http://purl.org/net/biblio>
>
> Am currently revising it.
>
> Worth noting that the classes have a hierarchy. So a Book is a
> subclass of Document, and so forth. It makes the typing more robust.
>

Right, this is fine, as long as 'book' is mentioned.

-Ross.