- From: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 18:10:43 +0100
- To: "Madans, Phil" <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com>
- CC: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Tim Clark <tim_clark@harvard.edu>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
You're perfectly right. But the frustration comes also to me when asking all our known distributors in France where half of them are the major American ones, what is there roadmap to accept ONIX3, they say "but nobody send us ONIX3!" Who will shoot first? Luc > Le 6 déc. 2013 à 17:56, "Madans, Phil" <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com> a écrit : > > There is no question that ONIX 3.0 offers many benefits over 2.1. The current stalemate here is very frustrating. And while Bill is correct in saying that a number of publishers have brought up the IT development costs for moving to ONIX 3.0, it is really more of a problem for the recipients--the booksellers, distributors and other sites that take ONIX. > > For instance, the modular structure of ONIX 3.0, that Bill mentioned, is one of its most powerful features. It allows sending a partial record for updating data. So, if an On Sale date for a product changes, only the module that contains that data needs to be sent. In 2.1, the complete ONIX title record needs to be sent. ONIX 3.0 is much more efficient that way and this should lead to smaller files and faster updating of recipient databases. But, the recipients would have to completely re-program their data ingestion processes and routines. This is not an insignificant effort. > > The truth is, if the major booksellers and distributors here in the U.S. approached the publishers and said they wanted ONIX 3.0 in six months' time, the publishers would send out ONIX 3.0. This is absolutely not to blame the recipients, but the publishers aren't going to rush to produce 3.0 if their trading partners aren't accepting it. Except for those who are just starting to use ONIX or are developing new internal systems anyway, where developing for ONIX 3.0 is the logical choice. > > Phil > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Phil Madans | Director, Publishing Standards and Practices | Hachette Book Group | 237 Park Avenue NY 10017 |212-364-1415 | phil.madans@hbgusa.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: AUDRAIN LUC [mailto:LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr] > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 2:09 AM > To: Bill Kasdorf; Madans, Phil; Ivan Herman > Cc: Tim Clark; W3C Digital Publishing IG > Subject: RE: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC > > +1 > > I will add that downward compatibility is available : it is possible to move an ONIX2.1 Product record to an ONIX3.0 one. > > On a publisher perspective, to echo another thread, ONIX isn't a "master file" as it is produced form the title information system (be it a large SQL database or an Excel file), transition from ONIX2.1 to ONX3 is a question of output. > >> From a supply chain perspective, ONIX3 has brought a great quality improvement for books description, and not only in digital. > > Luc > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Bill Kasdorf [mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com] > Envoyé : jeudi 5 décembre 2013 23:06 > À : Madans, Phil; Ivan Herman > Cc : AUDRAIN LUC; Tim Clark; W3C Digital Publishing IG Objet : RE: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC > > The reason for the backwards incompatibility is that ONIX 3.0 is completely restructured in a much better, more modular way than 2.1. The right thing to do, imo, going forward, but at the pain (hence the "ouch") of backwards incompatibility. > > Among the big benefits of 3.0, esp. relevant to this IG, are that it provides much richer features for digital products than 2.1. > > The reason adoption is lagging in the U.S. is that the U.S. more thoroughly adopted 2.1, and now all the big publishers' infrastructures are engineered for 2.1. Unfortunately for now they "work fine" ;-) (begging the definition of "fine"). China went straight to 3.0. > > 3.0 is WAY better. Most folks recognize this; it's the transition that's the problem. > > And don't get me going on ISBN usage. (Phil will relate to that--he chairs the ID committee for BISG and he is _all over_ these issues!) > > --Bill K > > -----Original Message----- > From: Madans, Phil [mailto:Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:42 AM > To: Ivan Herman > Cc: Luc Audrain; Tim Clark; W3C Digital Publishing IG > Subject: RE: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC > > Ouch is the nicest way I've heard it described... > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Phil Madans | Director, Publishing Standards and Practices | 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: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:38 AM > To: Madans, Phil > Cc: Luc Audrain; Tim Clark; W3C Digital Publishing IG > Subject: Re: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC > > Thanks Phil. I knew about the fact that 3.0 is new and adoption is lacking, I did not realize that were backward incompatibility issues (ouch...). > > Cheers > > Ivan > >> On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:35 , Madans, Phil <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com> wrote: >> >> One thing you must always keep in mind when discussing ONIX is that there are two version of ONIX in use today in the book industry: ONIX 2.1 and ONIX 3.0. The newer version, 3.0, has been in production for a few years now, but transition from 2.1 has been very slow. There has been adoption in some markets and usage is growing slowly, but, for instance, it is almost non-existent in the U.S. The main issue is that 3.0 is not backward compatible with 2.1, which entails a significant development effort and the need to maintain support for both version--for both senders and recipients. It is an issue of constant debate in BISG here in the U.S. Support for 2.1 is set to expire at the end of 2014, but full industry adoption will certainly take many more years. >> >> I bring this up not because I think this avenue shouldn't be explored, but to make all aware of a possible obstacle. >> >> Phil >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Phil Madans | Director, Publishing Standards and Practices | 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: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:29 AM >> To: Luc Audrain >> Cc: Tim Clark; W3C Digital Publishing IG >> Subject: Re: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC >> >> >>> On 05 Dec 2013, at 15:13 , AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Ivan, >>> >>> There has been at least some discussions at EDItEUR about a RDF version of ONIX. Obviously, the right person to consult is Graham Bell (graham@editeur.org). >> >> ... and I will see him next week! >> >>> I think that it can be an effort to move to this, but in this W3C initiative for publishing, it can give it a push. >> >> let us see... >> >> Ivan >> >>> Best, >>> Luc >>> >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] Envoyé : jeudi 5 décembre 2013 >>> 14:54 À : AUDRAIN LUC Cc : Tim Clark; W3C Digital Publishing IG Objet >>> : Re: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC >>> >>> So... afaik there has been a work for an RDF version of ONIX. I will actually visit EDItEUR in week, and I will try to find out more. I have the impression that a canonical representation of ONIX in RDF might go a long way binding the ONIX metadata with whatever metadata libraries or archives are using (whether that is BIBFRAME or something else). >>> >>> But I admittingly do not have a complete overview of the metadata issues around publishing... >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>>> On 05 Dec 2013, at 14:49 , AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>> As book publishers, we use ONIX for Books metadata to distribute on all the supply chain, physical and digital. >>>> It covers almost all of our needs or we work at EDItEUR to improve this schema. >>>> >>>> All of what Eric Miller says is relevant to our present concerns, noticeably around networking Works and Contributors. >>>> We find here suitable international standards as ISNI for Authors, but not yet for Works as ISTC failed. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Luc AUDRAIN >>>> Hachette Livre, Head of Digitalization >>>> >>>> De : Tim Clark [mailto:tim_clark@harvard.edu] Envoyé : jeudi 5 >>>> décembre 2013 14:09 À : Ivan Herman Cc : W3C Digital Publishing IG >>>> Objet : 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> 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 >> >> >> ---- >> 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. > > > ---- > 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. > > > > > 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 Friday, 6 December 2013 17:12:35 UTC