[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Metadata] DOI for reference linking -Reply



I suppose you are right - I must admit I was thinking of intermediate pages
which enabled you to 'get' the object, but of course you could as you point
out equally well have one which enabled you to choose between various
manifestations, and then (quite possibly) go to a further intermediate page
for the chosen one.

And of course you are absolutely right that you may wish to deal in some of
the rights to a work as opposed to a particular manifestation, even though
you can't obtain the work itself.

Sally


-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Paskin <N.Paskin@DOI.org>
To: n.paskin@doi.org <n.paskin@doi.org>; sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
<sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
Cc: discuss-doi@doi.org <discuss-doi@doi.org>; metadata@doi.org
<metadata@doi.org>
Date: 24 March 1999 10:28
Subject: [Metadata] DOI for reference linking -Reply


>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