Re: E-ISSN?

I'd argue ISSN-L data isn't freely downloadable - before you can access it you have to register and state your intended use - which raises the possibility of a proposed use being denied.
http://www.issn.org/2-24114-Request-for-downloading-the-ISSN-ISSN-L-table.php

However, I'm not sure this is a strong argument against simply repeating the issn property

Owen

Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: owen@ostephens.com
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 25 Nov 2013, at 14:34, Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com> wrote:

> As the ISSN-L data is freely downloadable and updated on a quarterly
> basis, any system that aggregates and parses schema.org data will have
> access to the ISSN-L table to determine linkages between print and
> electronic versions of the same periodical.
> 
> Therefore, I would recommend just using the http://schema.org/issn
> property, repeated if necessary, for ISSN, eISSN, and ISSN-L. If a
> system displays more than one ISSN for a given periodical and is
> adding schema.org structured data, they could just repeat the issn
> property as necessary.
> 
> It would be worthwhile adding an explicit example the
> http://schema.org/issn if we opt to go this route.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:
>> I think it is worth looking at what is out on the web already and consider
>> what it would take to mark it up sensibly with schema.org for different
>> approaches. For example from http://www.ajaonline.org/about
>> "The American Journal of Archaeology (ISSN 0002-9114; E-ISSN 1939-828X),..."
>> 
>> This seems perfectly readable and understandable to a human user who has
>> some familiarity with journals. Given time I could dig out some examples of
>> libraries having single records for print/electronic copies, and some
>> publishers list both ISSNs on a single page for a journal.
>> 
>> My concern would be that if we force these to split out into different
>> statements of title + issn in schema.org we are going against the 'low
>> barrier to implementation' that schema.org has aimed for in terms of data
>> publishers, and possibly make the human readable representation of the data
>> more awkward while making the machine readable version better/easier to
>> consume. Ideally I'd like to spend some time digging out some examples of
>> existing journal displays (not just from library catalogues) and seeing how
>> they markup with different approaches, but unfortunately I'm not going to be
>> able to do that this week.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> Owen Stephens
>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>> Email: owen@ostephens.com
>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>> 
>> On 24 Nov 2013, at 15:12, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>>

Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 15:52:39 UTC