Periodicals/Issues/Comics

On 11/27/13 5:10 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>
> On 11/27/13 7:26 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
>>
>> Wow, now it seems that I am the one confused ;-)
>> I didn't mean to make any comment on periodical, just on 'issuance',
>> which to me was the same as the much more intuitive notion of 'issue'.
>> To me an issue is not a collection--and that's what is implied by the
>> "Thing > CreativeWork > Collection > Issuance" from the current proposal.
>> But maybe I've wrongly understood the proposal...
>
> No, I think I wrongly understood your point. I thought you were saying that Issuance SHOULD be sub to Collection. And I was saying that Periodical SHOULD NOT be sub to collection. So we might have been saying the same thing. But I agree that Issuance-sub-Collection doesn't make sense, and I'm not sure that Issuance should have article page numbers, because I see that as a property of the article itself. That said....
>
> Here's what the comics proposal lists [1]:
>
>       Periodical Series - a sequential grouping of periodical issues - The New Yorker, Redbook, The Lancet, Amazing Spider-Man
>      Periodical Issues - individual instances of periodicals - The New Yorker Vol. 1, Issue 4
>      Individual comic issues - short-form, saddle-stitched, serially published comics (the pamphlet-sized comics seen in comic book stores and hobby shops) - Amazing Spider-Man# 600
>
> Their series includes the volume (even tho' the definition does not), so it looks like our issuance crosses their 'series' and 'issues'. Their "Individual comic issue" seems to be an anthology of previously published items, most likely within a series, that might get a series statement in library cataloging.[2] It could be thought of as a collection, but I doubt if anyone will be listing the individual parts. They also have "Graphic novel" which is a monograph that extends book, but that isn't a re-print of things that were once part of a comic series.
>
> I think at this point we need a comparative table. I will try to do that. What I think this means, though, is that there will be different views so that periodicity may be used in a variety of ways at different bibliographic "levels." Which would mean that we need to impose little pre-conceived structure on properties like "issue" "volume" etc. so that people can use them as they exist within their own context.
>
> I don't know how we engage the comics folks on this, but it could be an interesting conversation.
>
> kc
>
> p.s. I KNEW that serials would be a headache!
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/PeriodicalsComics
> [2] I tried to find some examples, but libraries don't carry the flimsy comics, usually, and some seem to be doing funky cataloging of the ones they do buy, expecting that they won't last long. In any case, how libraries catalog comics shouldn't drive too much of our view, IMO.
>



Hi Karen,

Thanks for the answer. It's clearer to me now. At the point that I could make some proposals to the current proposal
- certainly remove the collection super-typing for issuance
- probably remove the collection super-typing for periodicals (I feel less strong about this one, but understand your argument).

Perhaps also we could rename 'issuance' into "PeriodicalIssue". It's longer, but more explicit...

I don't feel strongly yet about the number of pages. Perhaps we can postpone it until we've agreed on the above, and made progress on the comparison with the Comics.

By the way the alignment between our current Periodical proposal and the comics one may be better than thought: there's a footnote on [1] for the volume identifier for series:
[
At Marvel we use the start year as the volume number, as does comics.org, but this isn't uniform, so we have kept this data point distinct from startYear.
]
This looks quite weird and different from the volume we think of. So perhaps there's no clash (other than on the names)?

Also, I note that Comics' individual issue is a subclass of Comics' periodical issue. So it's not really adding a completely different type of resource to their pattern. It's just the same 'class extension' as GraphicNovel does for Book.

Cheers,

Antoine

Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 16:45:12 UTC