[openbiblio-dev] Bibliographic Metadata Guide is now on Wiki !

Primavera De Filippi primavera.defilippi at okfn.org
Tue Nov 8 11:45:10 UTC 2011

Hi Jim, and thanks for the updates !
I integrated your comments into the wikibook at
(the etherpad has now been deprecated, so from now on it's better to
edit the wiki directly).

All, do you think the list of minimum metadata elements for literary works
is sufficiently accurate & detailed ? Shall we move on to different types
of works? e.g. images, movies, sounds ?

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> John Mark Ockerbloom <ockerblo at pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
> > I've added some comments to the "minimum" data elements for books
> > on the Etherpad.  (In particular, you can get by, and sometimes lack
> > data, for some of the items now marked "mandatory"; and some elements
> > show a little more variety than you might expect at first.)  Please
> > feel free to edit or respond to
> >     http://openbiblio.okfnpad.org/metadata-elements?
> > appropriately.
> I added a few points too. I'm not clear on the relation of this etherpad to
> Primavera's very professional looking  Wiki setup.
> The structure of this page parallels closely the structure of e.g.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX
> especially with respect to the required/optional nature of the elements
> associated with various
> types of document.
> These elements should be defined independent of type, to the greatest
> extent possible, though often
> meanings are understood by type, e.g. the ISBN field of a book chapter is
> an identifier of the book not the chapter.
> It is a question where exactly do the declarations:
> O - optional
> MA - mandatory if applicable, but may be legitimately missing
> M - Mandatory
> R - repeatable
> NR - not repeatable
> live relative to e.g. a JSON or XML schema that defines what machines can
> make of such data.
> The R/NR classification is structural, and likely part of the schema.  A
> metadata doc which did not meet the
> R/NR requirements would be invalid.  The O/MA/M status is not structural,
> but part of some best practice. Machines should help us deal
> with bad practice.
> I think main thing is that when data providers offer to publish metdata we
> give them a way to easily express all that they have,
> without undue burden.  I would be inclined to drop the M word, and go with
> "recommended" or "strongly recommended" for most elements
> presently marked as M.
> --Jim
> ----------------------------------------------
> Jim Pitman
> Professor of Statistics and Mathematics
> University of California
> 367 Evans Hall # 3860
> Berkeley, CA 94720-3860
> ph: 510-642-9970  fax: 510-642-7892
> e-mail: pitman at stat.berkeley.edu
> URL: http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/pitman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openbiblio-dev/attachments/20111108/b8362778/attachment.html>

More information about the openbiblio-dev mailing list