[Data-modeling] Possible revision to the way journal articles are modeled

[Jeff Prucher]

I'm reposting this because I've gotten some feedback at the related
discussion thread (<url:
http://www.freebase.com/discuss/threads/book#/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000
8cdbc2f>) and I'd like to see if anyone else has other thoughts before we
make a decision on this.

Original message:

Spurred on by an aside that spatialed made in some discussion post awhile
back (I can't locate the post), I'm considering revising the way that we
model journal issues.  Currently, each issue has its own topic, which links
to both the journal and the articles contained in that issue. (See
http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/book/journal_issue)  The main problems
with this format are that it is cumbersome to enter data, and also that most
bibliographic sources are concerned primarily with the article and the
journal, relegating the issue to a series of strings (volume, issue, date).
This latter issue might make integration with standard bibliographic schemas
a bit cumbersome, although it wouldn't be insurmountable.

As an experiment, though, I thought I'd try to see what a model that
eliminated the issue entirely looked like.  Here are the results (this links
to the filter view of the new CVT):
https://sandbox.freebase.com/type/view/book/journal_publication.

I've replaced the issue type with a CVT that connects the article and the
journal, and includes the standard bibliographic data of Volume, issue,
date, date extra, and pages ("date extra" is something I had to make up for
journals that aren't published on a schedule that translates into
mm/dd/yyyy).  Journal articles have both Scholarly Work and Written Work as
included types, although a journal article can also be a review, editorial,
letter or other type of writing.

The only real disadvantage that I see to this is that constructing the
contents of a given issue will be harder -- users will have to query on a
combination of several fields (volume, issue, etc.) to find what they're
looking for.

I'd love to hear what people think about this.

Thanks,

Jeff Prucher
Type Librarian & Ontologist
Metaweb Technologies, Inc.