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

On 24 Sep 2014, at 23:14 , Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote:

> True. It’s a cluttered road.

We are in a really dangerous business!

Ivan

> 
> 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.
>> 
> 
> 


----
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