[open-bibliography] (Final?) discussion of the openbiblio principles

Sun Jan 9 15:40:26 UTC 2011

Hello,

interesting how the central concepts of the principles  on openbiblio
("bibliographic data", "bibliographic description") don't seem to be
shared even by the persons who worked together to write them. And
interesting how different the principles seem to be read by the
different contributors. (That could mean that the principles aren't
clear enough which I don't necessarily think...)This exciting and
important discussion seems to be necessary. Hopefully we will finally
find some agreement on the language we use...

2011/1/9 Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>:
> First, we talk about two things: bib DATA and bib COLLECTIONS. We agree that
> bib DATA must be open, and also say that those who output their collections
> need to make it clear what the terms of use are. Thus, we are not treating
> collections as "open" to the same degree as the facts within them.

It seem that you distinguish "bibliographic data" and "bibliographic
collections"in this paragraph and put them on the same categorial
level. It sounds as if you equate "bibliographic data" with
"bibliographic description", aren't you? IMO, the term 'bibliographic
data' as used in the principles is a general term comprising
individual bibliographic descriptions as well as collections of such
descriptions. That is why the principles refer both to individual
bibliographic descriptions and to collections (see principles 1, 3 and
4). And, to be clear, we don't just say "that those who output their
collections need to make it clear what the terms of use are" we also
want them to publish the collections under an open license and
strongly recommend a PD license.[1]

> Second, in the US, a selection of facts (e.g. a topical bibliography, a
> reading list for a university course) MAY be copyrightable as a whole, even
> if the facts themselves are not.

OK but that should have no influence on the principles text. I thought
(as mentioned in my previous mail) that we agreed on the principles
being agnostic about whether and where collections or individual
bibliographic descriptions are subject to intellectual property rights
or not.

> Third, relationships between works will begin to be carried in library data
> due to FRBR and RDA. Citation information is NOT one of those relationships,
> because libraries do not intend to include it, but it would be a logical
> extension if someone else wishes to provide it.

I didn't argue for including citaion information in library records
(although I might as well argue for that). What I mean is, simplified:

library catalogs = printed bibliographies = journal article data bases
= bibliographic reference lists

In the context of the openbiblio principles all these things created
for different purposes and maybe greatly differing in size are nothing
else but COLLECTIONS OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS. Thus, following
the above, they are all in equal measure refered to by the principles'
text.

Adrian

[1] After the last meeting I thought we were past this point of the
discussion. I first publicly adressed this problem in November, see
point 1. in this mail:
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/2010-November/000585.html.

> Quoting Adrian Pohl <ad.pohl at googlemail.com>:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Peter wrote:
>>
>>> by contrast the Secondary data *may*  be:
>>> * subjective (annotation)
>>> * copyrightable in law (e.g. abstract, cover image)
>>> * mutable over time (e.g. links/citations, annotations)
>>> * lists (copyrightable in Europe)
>>
>> I object to classifying bibliographic reference lists as "secondary"
>> bibliographic data. The openbiblio principles clearly refer to
>> "collections of bibliographic data" and surely reference lists are
>> collections of what we name bibliographic CORE data.
>>
>> And I thought that we - at the last meeting - have definitely dropped
>> any reference in the principles to potential intellectual property
>> rights on bibliographic data - whether on indvidual descriptions or
>> collections. It seems to me that you are trying to get that back in as
>> a significant criterium for distinciton, Peter.
>>
>> Concerning the other two features of Core Data for Bibliography
>> proposed by Peter:
>>>
>>> * unique for an item and potentially normalizable
>>> * immutable over time (except for errors and omissions)
>>
>> These also hold for bibliographic reference lists. They are indeed
>> normalized following different standards. Regarding your speech of a
>> platonic bibliographic universe, Peter, it would take more space to
>> explain my view which - being nominalistic - differs considerably from
>> this platonism. We are not arguing for opening up bibliographic
>> descriptions in a platonic heaven of ideas but for real bibliographic
>> records. There aren't any a priori given bibliographic entities. We
>> construct them for our purposes. Different bibliographic descriptions
>> in different places thus might identify bibliographic entities of
>> interest in different ways. (E.g. when I am talking at a party about
>> "Moby Dick" I am normally abstracting from any edition, language or
>> item information. On the other extreme, I might want to identify and
>> describe a specific item, e.g. a book containing annotations by a
>> specific person. I might identify an edition like the ISBN normally
>> does or an impression (embodying an edition printed in a specific
>> year) like catalogers do. Correspondingly, you can think of FRBR as a
>> model for grasping the platonic entities but I'd rather see it as a
>> proposal for future practice of description.)
>>
>> In short, Peter, when you demand "the boundary to be reasonably clear"
>> I can't think of any relevant criteria to hold this boundary up. I see
>> no qualitative difference between a bibliographic reference list and
>> other collections of bibliographic descriptions like library catalogs,
>> journal (article) databases or other bibliographic data bases.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>> 2011/1/9 Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Pohl <adrian.pohl at okfn.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Jim initially suggested putting into ""Secondary data" "indication
>>>> that one work is derived from, related to, or cited by another work"".
>>>> I don't see a problem to include "indication that one work is derived
>>>> from or related to another work". If this information exists in a
>>>> bibliographic description it should of course be made open too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Clearly anyone can add any secondary data. This secondary data is likely
>>> to
>>> be more subjective or local than the core data.
>>>>
>>>> Concerning citations data we might first make clear what we are
>>>> talking about. Wikipedia[1] says (not general enough but ok for this
>>>> purpose):
>>>>
>>>> "Broadly, a citation is a reference to a published or unpublished
>>>> source (not always the original source). More precisely, a citation is
>>>> an abbreviated alphanumeric expression (e.g. [Newell84]) embedded in
>>>> the body of an intellectual work that denotes an entry in the
>>>> bibliographic references section of the work for the purpose of
>>>> acknowledging the relevance of the works of others to the topic of
>>>> discussion at the spot where the citation appears."
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Peter that in this sense citations aren't (and mustn't)
>>>> fully be covered by the principles.
>>>
>>>
>>> i.e. Principles [of Open Bibliographic Data]
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  But I think that a big part of
>>>> citations data is already included in the principles: bibliographic
>>>> reference lists. A bibliography or reference list of a monograph or
>>>> article identifies/locates all bibliographic resources that are cited
>>>> in a text. It is an aggregation of bibliographic descriptions (as a
>>>> journal data base or library catalog is) in aphabetic order and
>>>> nothing else. (BTW, that is why "scholars" are named in the principles
>>>> as "producers of bibliographic data".)
>>>>
>>>> So citations are already covered in part by the principles but not
>>>> fully because citation counts, citation context etc. aren't included.
>>>> And I don't think that we should include these. We might rather add a
>>>> phrase to explicitely include reference list. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I'd like the boundary to be reasonably clear. I think we would
>>> agree that the Core Data for Bibliography is:
>>> * unique for an item and potentially normalizable
>>> * immutable over time (except for errors and omissions)
>>> * uncopyrightable
>>>
>>> by contrast the Secondary data *may*  be:
>>> * subjective (annotation)
>>> * copyrightable in law (e.g. abstract, cover image)
>>> * mutable over time (e.g. links/citations, annotations)
>>> * lists (copyrightable in Europe)
>>>
>>> If some authority claims ownership over the Secondary data then they may
>>> have law on their side. Our approach will be to change the culture so
>>> that
>>> they realise this is not worth pursuing and they may get more value by
>>> making it Open.
>>>
>>> By contrast if an authority claims that they control/own Core data then
>>> we
>>> should persuade the community that this is currently unacceptable.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Karen writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Isn't there also the issue that citations are considered part of the
>>>> > text of
>>>> > an article? In thathas to be read as  sense, they are included in the
>>>> > copyrightable portion.
>>>> > However, if a third party reads the article and makes the connections
>>>> > between citer and citee, then this may be a separate declaration.
>>>>
>>>> At least bibliographic reference lists aren't covered by copyright. In
>>>> Germany we even have a letter[2] from the "Börsenverein des deutschen
>>>> Buchhandels" - the legal representation of publishers - which makes
>>>> clear that it is legally unproblematic to digitize and disseminate
>>>> bibliographic reference lists. (It says the same about index of
>>>> tables, lists of figures, name, place and subject indexes are listed
>>>> as not protected by copyright.)
>>>>
>>> This is useful - It is possible that we shall be able to publish material
>>> in
>>> some jurisdictions that we can't do elsewhere. There is a limit to which
>>> content owners can reasonbaly pursue this. E.g if we creat an index of
>>> scientific and mathematical bibliographic data then we should probably
>>> publish it in Germany. It will be hard and create marginal returns for a
>>> content provider to try to restrict UK access.
>>>
>>> BTW I am glad this is an open list as it's possible - even probable -
>>> that
>>> content providers are reading it. Gradually I think they will see that
>>> owning bibliographic content is untenable in the long run. This is not
>>> the
>>> music industry. The material is created by publicly funded individuals
>>> who
>>> gain no monetary reward. Reselling this and controlling it will not play
>>> well in the court of public opinion. Look at the OS and Open Streetmap...
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation
>>>>
>>>> [2]
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bibliotheksverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/DBV/vereinbarungen/Boersenverein_110707_Kataloganreicherung.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011/1/8 Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>:
>>>> > Quoting Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> By contrast the citations are subjective and potentially ambiguous or
>>>> >> "wrong". In an ideal world the bibliographic data are nodes in a
>>>> >> graph
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> the citations are (annotated) edges. In practice many citations point
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> non-existent or ambiguous nodes  - and this is in some cases
>>>> >> irresolvable.
>>>> >> An article can be created (and many are) without citations. An
>>>> >> article
>>>> >> must
>>>> >> have a single set of bibliographic data.
>>>> >
>>>> > Isn't there also the issue that citations are considered part of the
>>>> > text of
>>>> > an article? In that sense, they are included in the copyrightable
>>>> > portion.
>>>> > However, if a third party reads the article and makes the connections
>>>> > between citer and citee, then this may be a separate declaration.
>>>> >
>>>> > It is an unfortunate fact that many citations are "literary" rather
>>>> > than
>>>> > "factual" and Peter is right that a whole lot of citations don't
>>>> > connect
>>>> > up
>>>> > to anything in the bibliographic world. One of my dreams is that
>>>> > citations
>>>> > would be derived from bibliographic data (rather than being composed
>>>> > by
>>>> > authors) and would therefore contain the actual connections needed to
>>>> > be
>>>> > able to declare them as truly "bibliographic DATA". The capability for
>>>> > this
>>>> > almost exists in software like EndNote and Zotero, where citations are
>>>> > merely displays from actual data. Keeping these connections as linked
>>>> > data
>>>> > would be ideal.
>>>> >
>>>> > kc
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Karen Coyle
>>>> > kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>>> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>> > m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> > skype: kcoylenet
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > open-bibliography mailing list
>>>> > open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-bibliography mailing list
>>>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>>> University of Cambridge
>>> CB2 1EW, UK
>>> +44-1223-763069
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-bibliography mailing list
>>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-bibliography mailing list
>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>