I agree from a data/modelling point of view - I'm just pointing out that when one has a label in hand like "Pergamon" it is difficult to know whether this is the Publisher or the Imprint (in this case it could be either as Pergamon was a publisher and is now an Imprint owned by Elsevier I think). How to handle the situation where the data publisher either doesn't know or doesn't care about this distinction? My argument is that if we create a property of 'imprint' or 'publisher' then we have to accept and expect that the values put into these will inevitably be a mixture of both. Owen Owen Stephens Owen Stephens Consulting Web: http://www.ostephens.com Email: owen@ostephens.com Telephone: 0121 288 6936 On 9 Dec 2013, at 16:14, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > > But there may be an advantage to maintaining "imprint" as a distinct > property that defines a stronger relationship to the work being > described, rather than just adding one of a list of possible imprints > to the overall understanding of the publisher. > > Thanks, > Dan > > > There is an advantage to maintaining a separate imprint. > > In Freebase, we decided to add Imprint as a property under Publisher. > Ex. https://www.freebase.com/m/0n3j8jg?props=&lang=en&filter=%2Fbook%2Fpublishing_company&filter=%2Forganization%2Forganization&all=true > > (Also, Imprints, just like Publishers, can be co-typed as Organizations themselves) > > And Imprints, just like Publishers, are sometimes acquired or sold over time. So we also made sure to make Imprint a date mediated property, as well. > > FYI, > -- > -Thad > +ThadGuidry > Thad on LinkedIn
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 17:43:21 UTC