Re: E-ISSN?

As the ISSN-L data is freely downloadable and updated on a quarterly
basis, any system that aggregates and parses schema.org data will have
access to the ISSN-L table to determine linkages between print and
electronic versions of the same periodical.

Therefore, I would recommend just using the http://schema.org/issn
property, repeated if necessary, for ISSN, eISSN, and ISSN-L. If a
system displays more than one ISSN for a given periodical and is
adding schema.org structured data, they could just repeat the issn
property as necessary.

It would be worthwhile adding an explicit example the
http://schema.org/issn if we opt to go this route.


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:
> I think it is worth looking at what is out on the web already and consider
> what it would take to mark it up sensibly with schema.org for different
> approaches. For example from http://www.ajaonline.org/about
> "The American Journal of Archaeology (ISSN 0002-9114; E-ISSN 1939-828X),..."
>
> This seems perfectly readable and understandable to a human user who has
> some familiarity with journals. Given time I could dig out some examples of
> libraries having single records for print/electronic copies, and some
> publishers list both ISSNs on a single page for a journal.
>
> My concern would be that if we force these to split out into different
> statements of title + issn in schema.org we are going against the 'low
> barrier to implementation' that schema.org has aimed for in terms of data
> publishers, and possibly make the human readable representation of the data
> more awkward while making the machine readable version better/easier to
> consume. Ideally I'd like to spend some time digging out some examples of
> existing journal displays (not just from library catalogues) and seeing how
> they markup with different approaches, but unfortunately I'm not going to be
> able to do that this week.
>
> Owen
>
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: owen@ostephens.com
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
> On 24 Nov 2013, at 15:12, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not deeply emotionally invested which decision is made, but it seems
> like just having "ISSN" will be enough. As we've established, there's really
> no such thing as an eissn (as a distinct property) and while issn-l is, I'd
> be more interested to see how it's useful (in a schema context) before we
> accommodate it.
>
> I guess I already hate dealing having to look for issn and eissn properties
> when parsing serials data, adding another place to look just seems
> unnecessarily complicated for the consumer.
>
> That said, if a compelling argument can be made, I'm not going to argue
> against it.
>
> -Ross.
> On Nov 24, 2013 9:42 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/23/13 3:44 PM, Owen Stephens wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the ISSN registry does indeed treat these as the 'ISSN' - so the
>>> eISSN isn't a different kind of ISSN but just a different label for the
>>> ISSN applied to an electronic publication.
>>>
>>> However there is a lot of common practice that treats the concept of the
>>> journal 'title' as being something apart from the actual instantiations
>>> and so groups the print and electronic versions together, thus needing
>>> to differentiate through the use of the 'e' prefix for one of the ISSNs.
>>> Two systems I'm involved in (KB+ and GOKb) do this I'm afraid to say,
>>> and it is common practice in other 'knowledgebases' (SFX, SS360 etc.) as
>>> well as being pretty much baked into the KBart guidelines
>>> (http://www.uksg.org/kbart/s5/guidelines/data_field_labels).
>>>
>>> The ISSN-L is, as you say, an ISSN used to link things together but as
>>> far as I understand it the ISSN-L is simple one of the existing ISSNs
>>> for the title (not necessarily the ISSN for the print version, although
>>> it commonly is) and is not intended as a separate identifier but simply
>>> that one of the identifiers plays an additional role - although I'm not
>>> sure this isn't just messing about with the semantics to be honest, and
>>> in any case I don't think really helps us.
>>
>>
>> Here's what the page [1] says:
>>
>> *****
>>
>> Do publishers need to indicate when they are using ISSN-L as opposed to an
>> ISSN?
>>
>> Yes, in order for the ISSN-L to work effectively, publishers need to
>> clearly indicate when they are using an ISSN-L as opposed to an ISSN.
>>
>> The ISO standard recommendations for printing and displaying ISSN-L are as
>> follows: “the linking ISSN shall be clearly distinguished as such by use of
>> the label ISSN-L. In such cases, the label ISSN-L shall be written in
>> uppercase and a space shall precede the 8 digits of the linking ISSN.
>> Example : ISSN-L 0251-1479”.
>>
>> *****
>>
>> It looks like LC has gone through their existing serial file and
>> automagically created the ISSN-L subfield in the 022 (these are from old
>> journals):
>>
>> 022     __ |a 0096-5340 |l 0096-5340
>> 022     __ |a 0006-3541 |l 0006-3541
>>
>> I can find some usage by searching on "ISSN-L":
>>
>> "Print edition: ISSN-L 2247 - 9880. Online edition: ISSN 2247 - 9880"
>>
>> "Editor-in-Chief:Dr. Ecaterina Patrascu
>> Frequency:Monthly
>> ISSN 2286-4822
>> ISSN-L 2286-4822"
>>
>> So it *is* being used - I was wrong about that.
>>
>> The question, though, is whether we need an actual property for the
>> ISSN-L, or whether we can put this and the eISSN into an ISSN field. And if
>> the latter, do we leave/put the "ISSN-L" or "eISSN" in the string value for
>> the property?
>>
>> As I said to Diane, this gets us back to the "non-URI" identifiers
>> question. How far do we want to go to accommodate these? What use cases
>> exist that would help us decide?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> [1] http://www.issn.org/2-22637-What-is-an-ISSN-L.php
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> To address the questions:
>>> The concept of the 'eISSN' is useful as long as people continue to
>>> represent the print and electronic versions as part of the same 'record'
>>> - and I don't see this changing at the moment
>>> I'm not confident that we can ignore the ISSN-L - this is a relatively
>>> recent concept and my instinct is use will grow over the next few years
>>> - again it is something that has been discussed in both the GOKb and KB+
>>> projects although no specific use yet I think there will be once we have
>>> the data available.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>> Owen Stephens
>>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>>> Email: owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
>>>
>>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>>>
>>> On 22 Nov 2013, at 23:10, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET
>>> <mailto:kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the examples I added includes the E-ISSN. I have mixed feelings
>>>> about this, but I suspect it is quite common in metadata. (It seems to
>>>> me that it should be an ISSN attached to an electronic publication,
>>>> not a different kind of ISSN... oh well.) There is also the ISSN-L,
>>>> which fortunately does not seem to be referred to much, so I hope we
>>>> can ignore it.
>>>>
>>>> If you haven't run into ISSN-L, it is the ISSN of the print copy, and
>>>> is presumably used to gather the various formats (E, print, whatever)
>>>> together. The "L" stands for "linking." From the ISSN agency page:
>>>>
>>>> ISSN-L 0264-2875
>>>>            Printed version: Dance research = ISSN 0264-2875
>>>>            Online version: Dance research (Online) = ISSN 1750-0095
>>>>
>>>> If you know of a growing use of these, please speak up. I haven't run
>>>> into them, but I'm not watching any serials databases carefully. Also,
>>>> if E-ISSNs are falling out of use, then we can skip those. Anyone?
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>
>

Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 14:35:14 UTC