[Metadata] DOI for reference linking -Reply

[Norman Paskin <N.Paskin@DOI.org>]

Sally, thank you for your thoughtful response, which I find encouraging.  I
note the points you make, and in fact agree with most of them and they
are very helpful corrections and amplifications.

An issue where I am not sure I do agree is that you state 
<Works, on the other hand, I don't think do have such intermediate
pages>.  I think we are back to the distinction of what a DOI identifies
versus what it resolves to.  It would be possible to have a DOI identify a
work, and resolve to an intermediate page which is a list of the
manifestations in which that work is available.  And in fact, that is what
some current users of DOis are doing, notably ACS/CAS where the DOI
resolves to apage giving multiple options for delivery..

In a wider context - outside reference linking but within envisaged DOI
scope - it is porobably not sufficient to say <you cannot actually
order/obtain a work>.  Whilst you can only order a manifestation, you can
of course TRADE in works, i.e. the whole subsidiary rights businesses
(which of course in some industries are not subsidiary).  In a separate
note to this list Tony Hammond asked if it was useful to assign DOis to
works, characterising them as <<virtual things (ghosts?) which have no
tangible existence and hence cannot be experienced/consumed/enjoyed
or in any sense known>>.   For the reasons I have noted, I think it is
essential that we have a system which allows publishers to identify
works IF they wish to (functional granularity).  Legal definitions certainly
of course recognise works as entities and if the DOI is to support
transactions it must therefore be capable of recognising them. 
 
>>> Sally Morris <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> 18/March/1999
09:53pm >>>
Very interesting paper - the clarification of the need to identify the Work
itself, as well as any Manifestations of it, is invaluable.

A couple of things which could need further thought:

Manifestations, both physical and digital, and performances, may all have
'intermediate' pages to which a DOI can resolve (information, order form
or whatever).   That is in fact all that physical manifestations and
performances can resolve to in the digital environment, although digital
manifestations can also resolve to the object itself (although they will not
do so, in the absence of an 'e-commerce in IP' infrastructure, unless it is
available free of charge).   Works, on the other hand, I don't think do have
such intermediate pages since you cannot actually order/obtain a work.

All of the above do permit resolution of a DOI to a metadata record, and in
fact this is likely to be an extremely useful resolution for all sorts of
purposes and services.

In the case of journal article citations, one very likely (perhaps the most
likely) scenario is that the citation link will first resolve to the article
abstract.   I don't think it is correct to see this simply as metadata
(Description);  it can be very much a tradeable entity in its own right,
whether it is created by the author, the publisher or a third party (e.g. A&I
service).   The abstract then links to the full article, normally subject to
specific commercial hurdles (e.g. 'are you a subscriber').   This may
therefore need to be built into your model of how citation linking works
(and this implies that the abstract will require its own DOI).

The perhaps unwelcome conclusion is that one journal article will need
several DOIs with supporting metadata - work, physical manifestation(s)
(print), physical manifestation(s) (CD-rom), digital manifestation(s), and
the same again for the abstract.   How to make this palatable to
publishers is an interesting dilemma!

A couple of points of detail:

You refer interchangeably to 'Physical' and 'Print' manifestations.   This is
not strictly correct - a CD-rom is, in the INDECS model, a physical and NOT
a digital manifestation.

Your diagrammatic classification of 'Type' would, I think, be better if Work,
Manifestation and Performance were all on one logical level, and the
alternatives Physical and Digital (for Work only) on the next level down.

All Type values, apart from Work, need to refer to the Work

All Origination values, apart from Original, should refer (shouldn't they?)
to the foregoing Work(s) to which they relate

Kernel elements for all DOI genres cannot, I think, make it normally
mandatory to include an identifier from one or more other schemes.   Only
if it exists already - to create a new ISBN, ISSN or whatever purely for
these purposes would be nonsensical, surely?

URL resolution cannot be mandatory - work does not resolve to a URL; 
physical manifestations, performances can only resolve to an
intermediate URL.

Journal article kernel needs to state Form - Type may be Manifestation: 
Physical but this does not tell you if it's print or CD-rom, and this is
necessary

Publication date may not be a meaningful concept when an article is first
mounted in digital form - this may be before it has been allocated a 'place'
in a journal issue (e.g. 'As soon as publishable' service).    

Online-only journals may not have issues at all, and certainly won't have
pages.

I still can't see what need there is for a Publisher field in a citation linking
service 

'First (xxx) manifestation' might be better named 'primary' since the
language does not then necessarily imply that it is chronologically first
(for example, the 'first manifestation' of a journal article initially mounted in
the 'As soon as publishable' service might, functionally, be the formally
published one with pagination etc.)

You tend to refer throughout to the 'Publisher' assigning the DOI etc.  
While this is an understandable assumption for ex-publishers like you and
me to make, it is not necessarily the case.   Language needs to be
scrupulously neutral to avoid alienating other players in the information
chain.

One operational matter still concerns me.   While I absolutely see the value
of creating citation linking services as soon as possible, as a positive
demonstration to all concerned that the DOI can deliver services of value
to the information chain, I am unconvinced that this should properly be
operated by or even under the auspices of DOI.   Creating a standards
and technical infrastructure to make it possible - yes, absolutely!   But
actually operating it - dangerous.   I think this could be seen as
monopolistic, or a least distinctly anti-competitive, and is more properly left
to commercial players in the marketplace, of which there are plenty.


Sally Morris




------------------------------------------------------
Metadata maillist  -  Metadata@doi.org
http://www.doi.org/mailman/listinfo/metadata