W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > March 2014

RE: [metadata] yet another vocabulary coming up?

From: Madans, Phil <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:26:17 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8edd2609df79475abbf4429527c65406@BY2PR06MB106.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
I think it is more than the workflow or the Publishing Life-Cycle, although it definitely plays a part. Publishing, as an industry is very silo'd.  As a trade publisher I have very little visibility into the library market or STM or academic publishing.  Even within the library market you have the University Libraries and the Public Libraries and they each may have their own ways of doing things. And yes the author, editorial, production workflows can be completely different among the verticals, too. Magazine Publishers had a different set of needs and developed PRISM. The problem is that the verticals are so insulated that we miss opportunities. What one vertical is doing could be beneficial to another, if only there was more transparency.  I would think STM must have something to teach Trade Publishers about online discovery.  Translating between the verticals and the different business models is difficult.


Phil Madans | Executive Director of Digital Publishing Technology | Hachette Book Group | 237 Park Avenue NY 10017 |212-364-1415 | phil.madans@hbgusa.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:37 PM
To: Bill Kasdorf
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG
Subject: Re: [metadata] yet another vocabulary coming up?

Looking at this, one thing that dawned on me... What I would like to understand is how the different vocabularies relate to a whole publishing pipeline (maybe pipeline is not the right word because things are not necessarily linear). You guys are the expert, I am just the layperson, but in my mind there is some sort of a workflow starting with the author, going on with the editing and production, marketing and sale, then the library cataloging, the references to the publication (eg for scholarly publishing), making it available for search engines, down to a possible personal management of one's own bookshelves. Each of these steps and states involve terms to use, which is, in my jargon, the vocabulary and identifiers to use.

So... I would love to have a clearer understanding on which vocabulary can be hooked on which of these steps. Of course, it is not very simple, because one vocabulary can have a role in several of these states, but each has a particular advantage/emphasis which makes it particularly usable and/or largely used in a particular state. For example, ONIX seems to have lots of marketing and sale terms, but it is way too complicated for search engines I presume; hence the necessity of the bibliographic extensions to schema.org. Dublin core is very simple, but this means it has the power of simplicity as well as ubiquity which makes it o.k. for linkage to many other things. The various LOC vocabularies seem to bind the publication metadata to the traditional library cataloguing world. Etc.

Ie: for each vocabulary: what is its main role, main purpose, where does it fit in the publishing world?

Am I banging on open doors? I mean, is this very clear to people in the publishing world? If so, I will shut up. But if not, this may give some sort of a guiding principles for the issues we would try to document...



On 10 Mar 2014, at 15:43 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote:

> Yes, MODS has been around a long time and is definitely relevant. So is another such general purpose and somewhat related scheme from the LOC, METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard), which is at http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/. I often refer to METS when talking to folks about metadata because it makes clear that metadata can encompass descriptive, administrative, and structural metadata--folks often think in terms of just one of those. In fact, you probably noticed that MODS is described as a potential extension schema to METS. My impression of MODS is that it is primarily bibliographic metadata, but perhaps somebody else on the IG can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
> Thanks for sending this--both MODS and METS need to be part of the discussion, definitely.
> --Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 6:32 AM
> To: Bill Kasdorf
> Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG
> Subject: [metadata] yet another vocabulary coming up?
> It may be old news for you, but it is new to me...
> I have just ran across
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/
> https://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/
> We clearly do not have enough vocabularies to choose from:-)
> Interestingly,
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-overview.html
> says:
> [[[
> MODS is intended to complement other metadata formats. For some applications, particularly those that have used MARC records, there will be advantages over other metadata schemes. Some advantages are:
> * The element set is richer than Dublin Core
> * The element set is more compatible with library data than ONIX
> * The schema is more end user oriented than the full MARCXML schema
> * The element set is simpler than the full MARC format ]]]
> which would make it highly relevant for this community, too; after all, both ONIX and Dublin Core are widely used by publishers...
> We should pick up the discussion on whether we want to give some sort of an overview of existing vocabularies.
> 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

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

This may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete immediately, and understand that no disclosure or reliance on the information herein is permitted. Hachette Book Group may monitor email to and from our network.
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 18:26:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:19 UTC