35 lines
4.0 KiB
Plaintext
35 lines
4.0 KiB
Plaintext
---+!! %TOPIC%
|
|
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1100558195" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="WebHome"}%
|
|
The <nop>AlexandriaCore (previously also known as "<nop>GutenbergCore", originally proposed so in Christchurch 2004) is an attempt to agree on a relatively simple schema to express bibliographic reference information as needed in biodiversity, and probably all of bioscience.
|
|
|
|
This page needs some updating once a new discussion gets started. Older stuff is under ProxyDataPublication - please take a look at that and tell me what you think is missing or whether approach is valid.
|
|
|
|
One question from Christchurch: How shall we cite software? I would think it is best represented by an Article - I see little advantage in adding a new category for it.
|
|
|
|
-- Main.GregorHagedorn - 08 Nov 2004
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
A new point raised on email between me and Rich Pyle:
|
|
* Rich: ... But if there are different authors or date than the parent, it becomes a Subreference unit.
|
|
* Gregor: I wonder about date. It is impossible for a thing to have a different date than the independent publication? Perhaps for books delivered in parts? Not sure Alexandria core covers that - I think not! - 9 Nov 2004
|
|
* Rich: Yes exactly -- books delivered in parts. There are many cases of this, where a unit traditionally cited as a single "book" (rather than as a Series of books) have different dates for different page ranges. In many cases, these can be handled by "Citable Subunits" -- but in many ther cases, they are not. Sometimes the page ranges break-apart in mid-sentence, with the first half of the sentence published on one date, and the second half published on another date. I think that AC *needs* to accomodate these things, because they do have "reality" even outside the context of taxonomy (where date can be important for purposes of establishing priority).
|
|
* Gregor: I agree although I do not know immediately what the most parsimonious way would be in AC. Privately I tend to think that any occasion of citing a date range ("Raabe 1935-1937") is bad practice, summarizing things that come in volumes, but which the library bound together. So far I found no real publication that came out in two years :-) I consider books that come in installments as bound-together separate publications. Many libraries bind together small Journal volumes as well - nobody sees a problem there. But there may be cases where it is impossible to know. However, I do not want AC to be too prescriptive, so it probably should support date ranges! - 9 Nov 2004
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
New: AlexandriaCoreExamples
|
|
|
|
*Some rambling:* most urgent in my eyes is rethinking the separation of issues of citation (= in the context of cited information), bibliography, and representation of the referenced object. I mostly visualize AC records as being rendered in a bibliography, but I start thinking this may be wrong. In conventional publishing (and mirrored in much digital publishing), the citation reference in the text is a short pointer to the references/bibliography section. However, many issues are overlapping: there may a page number in the citation text context, but a book may also be limited to a chapter or a page-range in the bibliography. Also other citation-specific issues like "[last accessed 6.2.2004]" currently are proposed together with Location in the Citation type - but are most usually found in the bibliography.
|
|
|
|
Page, figure, table number is currently called "Location" (equivalent to "ReferenceDetail" in many other models).
|
|
|
|
The type including Location is currently called Citation. It is somewhat equivalent to a "subreference" in Richard Pyle's model, however, it provides no different authorship at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Should the Citation type be called differently? Subreference? Should Location be called "Fragment" and include chapter titles in addition to page/figure numbers and html bookmarks? Or should "Location" be "Part" and "AC.Part" removed from AC-main type?
|
|
|
|
Should bibliography be viewed as a combination of AC publication representation and citation with location?
|
|
|