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

Yes, Bowker were a DOI registration agency and I can tell you that the
associated systems and metadata were the primary reason DOIs for trade
books (as opposed to STEM/scholarly) never took off.

So you see, Ivan, the road to book URIs is littered with a couple of
corpses.

On 9/24/14, 3:13 PM, "Bill Kasdorf" <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote:

>Actually, the DOI _is_ used for this, mainly by scholarly/STM publishers,
>as well as for chapters of books--typically one DOI for the book and a
>DOI for each chapter (and sometimes DOIs at even lower component levels,
>most often for figures and tables). And these are _agnostic_ as to
>format, they typically mean "the book" and "the chapter" in the abstract
>sense. When you click on one of these DOIs you are usually then given
>your choice of what format, whether you have access, how to obtain
>access, etc.
>
>But it requires the associated systems, metadata, registration agency,
>etc. to make it work. To belabor a point, though, in that context it does
>work. There are a gazillion of them. The whole scholarly/STM ecosystem is
>now dependent on DOIs.
>
>Those that use the DOI for this use CrossRef DOIs, which _should_ be
>expressed as URIs (and increasingly are).
>
>But all that is purely under the control of the publisher (including what
>the DOI links to and what that destination provides--not necessarily the
>content itself); it doesn't address "work" in the way librarians mean
>"work," and it requires the systems I mentioned (including the Handle
>system on which DOI is based). It would not work for our need to point to
>the "work itself" or some component of the work. So the answer in a
>purely standard web-world sense is still no.
>
>--Bill K
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Laura Dawson [mailto:Laura.Dawson@bowker.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:55 PM
>To: Ivan Herman; Graham Bell
>Cc: Laura Dawson; Phil Madans; Bill Kasdorf; W3C Public Digital
>Publishing IG Mailing List
>Subject: Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....
>
>As it stands now, no. So a book's "home" on the web (regardless of
>edition) is not standardizable at this point unless you want to go down
>the DOI road (please let's not go down the DOI road).
>
>On 9/24/14, 4:13 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 19:17:24 UTC