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

True. It’s a cluttered road.

On 9/24/14, 5:12 PM, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
>On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:16 , LAURA DAWSON <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>It’s not just books.  I was on a project that needed something for
>recordings many years ago, and that road was also strewn with 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>David Singer
>Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 21:15:16 UTC