Re: E-ISSN?

I'm not deeply emotionally invested which decision is made, but it seems
like just having "ISSN" will be enough. As we've established, there's
really no such thing as an eissn (as a distinct property) and while issn-l
is, I'd be more interested to see how it's useful (in a schema context)
before we accommodate it.

I guess I already hate dealing having to look for issn and eissn properties
when parsing serials data, adding another place to look just seems
unnecessarily complicated for the consumer.

That said, if a compelling argument can be made, I'm not going to argue
against it.

-Ross.
On Nov 24, 2013 9:42 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/23/13 3:44 PM, Owen Stephens wrote:
>>
>> I think the ISSN registry does indeed treat these as the 'ISSN' - so the
>> eISSN isn't a different kind of ISSN but just a different label for the
>> ISSN applied to an electronic publication.
>>
>> However there is a lot of common practice that treats the concept of the
>> journal 'title' as being something apart from the actual instantiations
>> and so groups the print and electronic versions together, thus needing
>> to differentiate through the use of the 'e' prefix for one of the ISSNs.
>> Two systems I'm involved in (KB+ and GOKb) do this I'm afraid to say,
>> and it is common practice in other 'knowledgebases' (SFX, SS360 etc.) as
>> well as being pretty much baked into the KBart guidelines
>> (http://www.uksg.org/kbart/s5/guidelines/data_field_labels).
>>
>> The ISSN-L is, as you say, an ISSN used to link things together but as
>> far as I understand it the ISSN-L is simple one of the existing ISSNs
>> for the title (not necessarily the ISSN for the print version, although
>> it commonly is) and is not intended as a separate identifier but simply
>> that one of the identifiers plays an additional role - although I'm not
>> sure this isn't just messing about with the semantics to be honest, and
>> in any case I don't think really helps us.
>
>
> Here's what the page [1] says:
>
> *****
>
> Do publishers need to indicate when they are using ISSN-L as opposed to
an ISSN?
>
> Yes, in order for the ISSN-L to work effectively, publishers need to
clearly indicate when they are using an ISSN-L as opposed to an ISSN.
>
> The ISO standard recommendations for printing and displaying ISSN-L are
as follows: “the linking ISSN shall be clearly distinguished as such by use
of the label ISSN-L. In such cases, the label ISSN-L shall be written in
uppercase and a space shall precede the 8 digits of the linking ISSN.
Example : ISSN-L 0251-1479”.
>
> *****
>
> It looks like LC has gone through their existing serial file and
automagically created the ISSN-L subfield in the 022 (these are from old
journals):
>
> 022     __ |a 0096-5340 |l 0096-5340
> 022     __ |a 0006-3541 |l 0006-3541
>
> I can find some usage by searching on "ISSN-L":
>
> "Print edition: ISSN-L 2247 - 9880. Online edition: ISSN 2247 - 9880"
>
> "Editor-in-Chief:Dr. Ecaterina Patrascu
> Frequency:Monthly
> ISSN 2286-4822
> ISSN-L 2286-4822"
>
> So it *is* being used - I was wrong about that.
>
> The question, though, is whether we need an actual property for the
ISSN-L, or whether we can put this and the eISSN into an ISSN field. And if
the latter, do we leave/put the "ISSN-L" or "eISSN" in the string value for
the property?
>
> As I said to Diane, this gets us back to the "non-URI" identifiers
question. How far do we want to go to accommodate these? What use cases
exist that would help us decide?
>
> kc
>
> [1] http://www.issn.org/2-22637-What-is-an-ISSN-L.php
>
>
>
>>
>> To address the questions:
>> The concept of the 'eISSN' is useful as long as people continue to
>> represent the print and electronic versions as part of the same 'record'
>> - and I don't see this changing at the moment
>> I'm not confident that we can ignore the ISSN-L - this is a relatively
>> recent concept and my instinct is use will grow over the next few years
>> - again it is something that has been discussed in both the GOKb and KB+
>> projects although no specific use yet I think there will be once we have
>> the data available.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> Owen Stephens
>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>> Email: owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
>>
>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>>
>> On 22 Nov 2013, at 23:10, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET
>> <mailto:kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET>> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the examples I added includes the E-ISSN. I have mixed feelings
>>> about this, but I suspect it is quite common in metadata. (It seems to
>>> me that it should be an ISSN attached to an electronic publication,
>>> not a different kind of ISSN... oh well.) There is also the ISSN-L,
>>> which fortunately does not seem to be referred to much, so I hope we
>>> can ignore it.
>>>
>>> If you haven't run into ISSN-L, it is the ISSN of the print copy, and
>>> is presumably used to gather the various formats (E, print, whatever)
>>> together. The "L" stands for "linking." From the ISSN agency page:
>>>
>>> ISSN-L 0264-2875
>>>            Printed version: Dance research = ISSN 0264-2875
>>>            Online version: Dance research (Online) = ISSN 1750-0095
>>>
>>> If you know of a growing use of these, please speak up. I haven't run
>>> into them, but I'm not watching any serials databases carefully. Also,
>>> if E-ISSNs are falling out of use, then we can skip those. Anyone?
>>>
>>> kc
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>