Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....

Thanks for all the interesting discussion...

However: all this is to say that there does not seem to be any existing (and viable) option to uniquely identify (preferably through a URI) a 
'work' (whether in the ISTC or the FRBR sense). Which is a problem for metadata as well as for archiving. :-( Tell me I am wrong, please...

Ivan


On 24 Sep 2014, at 24:19 , Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org> wrote:

> And they can be treated this way in ONIX too. As I said, 
> 
>> they are not (strictly) an attribute of the ISBN, though they may be presented as such in various systems
> 
> G
> 
> NB repeatable because the ISBN is associated directly with only one work, but can be indirectly associated (through that work) with several other works.
> 
> 
> On 23 Sep 2014, at 21:12, LAURA DAWSON wrote:
> 
>> Yes, even at Bowker we made them a repeatable attribute on the ISBN record.
>> 
>> From: "Madans, Phil" <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM
>> To: Laura Dawson <ljndawson@gmail.com>, Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Digital Publishing IG Mailing List <public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....
>> 
>> I stand corrected on the assignment of the ISTC. Bad choice of words.  I was speaking more on how I would have to manage them internally on the systems level—that’s how I think about these things—and that would be as an attribute.  That  all depends on how titles systems are structured, and I’m not saying ours is the best way to do things, but I think the way we do it is how most do it these days. From a practical standpoint, I’m not sure how else I could handle them. IF I publish an English and Spanish edition of a work, and the ISTC’s are different, then they would be attributes of the ISBNs so that I could keep them linked internally.  We are already doing this, as is most everyone else, and I think that is why the ISTC was such a hard sell. 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Phil Madans | Executive Director of Digital Publishing Technology | Hachette Book Group | 237 Park Avenue NY 10017 |212-364-1415 | phil.madans@hbgusa.com
>> 
>> From: LAURA DAWSON <ljndawson@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 2:22 PM
>> To: Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org>, Phil Madans <phil.madans@hbgusa.com>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Digital Publishing IG Mailing List <public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....
>> 
>> Bowker was an ISTC registration agency until recently. We pulled out because of the lack of support in the US, and refer the few curious to Nielsen. 
>> 
>> From: Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 2:09 PM
>> To: Phil Madans <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com>, Laura Dawson <ljndawson@gmail.com>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Digital Publishing IG Mailing List <public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....
>> 
>> What Phil and Laura have written certainly summarises -- and illustrates -- the debate over identifiers.
>> 
>> But the text below (from Phil) is a little misleading. 
>> 
>>> Whether an ISTC
>>> is a real work Identifier or not is a matter of debate. I disagree that ii
>>> is. It is actually an attribute of the ISBN―-hat is how they are assigned.
>>> Different ISBNs of the same master content might have different ISTC’s.
>>> Translations for instance.
>> 
>> The 'rules' of the ISTC say that translations are by definition different works, and MUST have different ISTCs (though those ISTCs will be related to each other -- one is a 'derived work', and this close relationship is recorded in the registration metadata for the ISTCs themselves). This contrasts with library practice, where 'work' is something at a higher level and two translations are actually termed two 'expressions' of the same 'work'. In library terms, the ISTC is an expression identifier. See the attached PDF (a slide from a training session that I deliver fairly regularly) for a summary of how the <indecs> model on which ISTC and ONIX are based compares with the FRBR library model. There is -- as far as I know -- no public identifier that works at the FRBR:work level, though libraries may have internal IDs.
>> 
>> And I'm pretty sure ISTCs can be assigned without an ISBN (and without any product ID at all, in fact) -- they are not (strictly) an attribute of the ISBN, though they may be presented as such in various systems. They can be registered based on a manuscript, prior to there being a product.
>> 
>> On the other hand, there's no doubt that ISTC has so far proved unpopular among publishers, for some of the reasons Laura and Phil list, and its actual usage is minimal.
>> 
>> 
>> Graham
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Graham Bell
>> EDItEUR
>> 
>> Tel: +44 20 7503 6418
>> Mob: +44 7887 754958
>> 
>> EDItEUR Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no 2994705. Registered Office: United House, North Road, London N7 9DP, UK. Website: http://www.editeur.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me