W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > December 2013

RE: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 12:09:17 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Tim Clark <tim_clark@harvard.edu>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3f71c3355fa1493aae9a0a072f1fac51@CO2PR06MB572.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>

>From the CrossRef website (http://www.crossref.org/):

>CrossRef is an association of scholarly publishers that develops shared infrastructure to support more effective scholarly communications. Our citation-linking network today covers over 60 million journal articles and other content items (books chapters, data, theses, technical reports) from thousands of scholarly and professional publishers around the globe.

>CrossRef has a critical mass of more than 2.8 million book DOIs registered. This means that there are about 138,000 titles from more than 90 publishers available for reference linking

CrossRef and the DOI are _totally essential_ to scholarly publishing today. Indispensible. Virtually universally depended on. I can't stress this strongly enough.

The CrossRef DOI is in virtually EVERY scholarly journal reference published today, and increasingly in book references. I wasn't kidding when I said gazillions. It's how the system works. The reason they are dominant in journal articles and not in books is that virtually all journal articles are online and few books are. Journal articles can be linked to directly, which is what the CrossRef DOI enables.

I'm a big advocate of DOIs for books. (I wrote a paper on this for CrossRef a couple of years ago.) BTW the DOI does not necessarily have to take you to the _content_ (as it typically does for journal articles); the publisher controls (and can change) the URL it points to, so book publishers can point to where you can _obtain_ the book (or chapter)-including what is called "Multiple Resolution" (e.g. to resolve to a menu that lets you choose to get the book from Apple, Amazon, B&N, Kobo, or the publisher directly-you pick).

--Bill Kasdorf

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 4:58 AM
To: Bill Kasdorf
Cc: Tim Clark; W3C Digital Publishing IG
Subject: Re: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC

Interesting. As a (former) scholarly researcher, ie, publisher, I did not meet this CrossRef directly, nor is it usual to use reference to crossref in scholarly references or in systems like Mendelay or Zotero. Can you send some references around?

Is this also relevant for scholarly book publishing?


On 07 Dec 2013, at 10:53 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>> wrote:

> The key issue re bibliographic metadata for scientific journal

> publishing is CrossRef metadata and the DOI, which provide

> cross-publisher linking and other services (identification of most

> recent version via CrossMark, plagiarism detection, etc.). It is

> essential and ubiquitous in the scholarly journal space, and now

> increasingly used for scholarly books (CrossRef already has millions

> of book DOIs, at both the title and chapter level . . . and a

> gazillion, maybe a gazillion and a half, journal DOIs). These CrossRef

> DOIs appear in most citations of journal articles, and some publishers

> refresh their citations frequently to capture newly registered

> articles that are cited in already-published articles that didn't have

> DOIs when those articles were originally published. This is important

> for both the publishing and library worlds. CrossRef has a basic set

> of required metadata that enables DOI registration and link

> resolution, and accommodates much more metadata than the required

> minimum.-Bill Kasdorf


> From: Tim Clark [mailto:tim_clark@harvard.edu]

> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:09 AM

> To: Ivan Herman

> Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG

> Subject: Re: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC


> Agree this effort  is entirely and importantly relevant, and there are others such as CiTO the citation ontology,  as well.  I actually don't see any particular separation - there is a minimum an intersection.


> If you look at scientific journal publishing, what is the difference between bibliographic info at publisher's website and at for example, NLM (National Library of Medicine)?


> NLM has in addition to the "pure" bibliographic metadata, a lot of search-oriented stuff like MeSH terms; the abstracts; and interesting sort of "hidden" metadata like "most similar to what other publications".


> No doubt publishers have a lot of process-oriented metadata, and there is likely other stuff I know nothing about.  But at least there is an important intersection set between libraries and publishers. Front matter of books always have ISBN, LOC or Brit Lib catalog number, etc. and you can expand out on common stuff from there.


> Tim Clark


> Director, Biomedical Informatics Core, Massachusetts General Hospital

> Instructor in Neurology, Harvard Medical School




> On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:



> I am not sure this is directly relevant to the Metadata Task Force discussion, but it may be of interest nevertheless:


> http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/media/updateforum-nov22-2013.html


> contains a fairly long video on LoC's BIBTEX initiative. Yes, it is library metadata, not publishers' metadata, but I guess one of the challenges in general is how to bring those together.


> Eric Miller, who is one of the developers (and, actually, who led the Semantic Web Activity at W3C until 2007) makes a very high level case for the usage of a BIBTEX-like structure (starting around 49:00 in the video). His talk lacks technical details for my taste, but I guess that was the nature of the audience...


> Ivan


> ----

> Ivan Herman, W3C

> Digital Publishing Activity Lead

> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

> mobile: +31-641044153

> GPG: 0x343F1A3D

> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf







> The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom

> it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error

> and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the

> Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline

> . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient

> information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail.



Ivan Herman, W3C

Digital Publishing Activity Lead

Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

mobile: +31-641044153

GPG: 0x343F1A3D

FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
Received on Saturday, 7 December 2013 12:09:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:18 UTC