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

[Mohammad Al-Ubaydli]

Hi Jeff,
my apologies that I am new and so have not seen your previous discussion
thread but I just wanted to make sure that you had already seen and
considered the National Library of Medicine's journal archiving DTD. This
website has very good documentation about the tags and hierarchy:

http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/tag-library/2.3/index.html

The DTD has been adopted by most major publishing houses for use across all
their Science, Technology and Medicine journals. I would recommend using it
as the standard on which to model, except where data entry presents a
difficulty, because it would allow mass imports from PubMed and from
journals much more easily in the future.

(I used to work at NLM so would be happy to answer more questions if you
wanted to pursue this further.)

Best,
mohammad

Mohammad Al-Ubaydli, MD
e me at mo.md
w www.mo.md

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Jeff Prucher <jeff at metaweb.com> wrote:

> 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<http://www.freebase.com/discuss/threads/book#/guid/9202a8c04000641f8000000008cdbc2f>>)
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20080903/d8791fcb/attachment.htm