Scope of the ontology
Closed this issue · 5 comments
The intended scope of the ontology is not clear. That is, which bibliographic entities is it meant for, and are there entities to which it cannot be applied?
Current library cataloging rules (Resource Description and Access) define three cases:
single unit: a resource that is issued either as a single physical unit (e.g., as a single-volume monograph) or, in the case of an intangible resource, as a single logical unit (e.g., as a PDF file mounted on the web);
multipart monograph: a resource issued in two or more parts (either simultaneously or successively) that is complete or intended to be completed within a finite number of parts (e.g., a dictionary in two volumes, three audiocassettes issued as a set);
serial: a resource issued in successive parts, usually having numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion (e.g., a periodical, a monographic series, a newspaper).
By using the term "periodicals" you seem to imply that you are scoping the ontology to a subset of serials. Perhaps you use "periodicals" as a synonym for "serials".
Multipart monographs have the same needs as serials for description of enumeration and chronology. Are they in scope for the ontology or not?
Please clarify the scope of the ontology in the Introduction.
First of all thanks for the feedback!
I guess the scope of the ontology is hidden behind my poor translation skills. What I meant to say is, that a Chronology is typically in the range of a periodically published entity (somehow this was the German definition of serials before RDA). I wasn't aware of multipart monographs having "the same needs as serials for description of enumeration and chronology". But I omitted a domain for ecpo:Chronology, having in mind, that something other than a serial (maybe a Document see http://dini-ag-kim.github.io/holding-ontology/holding.html#document) could be the domain of a Chronology.
Is there a accumulative/superior term for both multipart monographs and serials? Do you have a suggestion how this could be described?
There is no higher term encompassing serials and multipart monographs. The simplest way to refer to them is "serials and multipart monographs".
Multipart monographs (sets) have volume numbering, and on rare occasion chronology. Like serials, they need some way to describe their enumeration. It would be a shame (in my view) to create a separate but largely identical ontology for multipart monographs when both serials and multiparts could be incorporated in ECPO. I think that it is enough to state that ECPO may be used for both. As long at it is clear what the scope is, the chance for miscommunication (bad data) is reduced.
The term periodical is somewhat fraught. It is often defined along the lines of this (OCLC bib formats and standards): a serial publication that contains separate articles, stories, other writings, etc., and is published or distributed generally more frequently than annual. In this view, periodicals are distinct from annuals, newspapers, monographic series, and irregular serials. I'm not suggesting that you change the name of the ontology, only that you clarify in the introduction that by periodicals you mean serials in general.
Done. Maybe you want to take a look at http://cklee.github.io/ecpo/ecpo-7710346.html. I altered the introduction and added a paragraph 'Scope of the ontology'. Feedback is welcome!
Thanks, I think this makes it clear that the ontology can be used for serials and multiparts if someone wants that.
Fine! I close this issue.