search

SSHOC / vocabularies

0 stars 0 forks source link

publication-type vocabulary #20

Closed dpancic closed 1 year ago

dpancic commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @KlausIllmayer on Jun 15, 2021, 17:35

Currently we claim to use the Bibliographic Ontology (bibo: http://bibliontology.com/ ; https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/vocabs/bibo) but we take only some of the owl-classes from there (e.g. we miss bibo:Manuscript, bibo:Periodical, bibo:EditedBook, bibo:Slideshow and many more) and introduce bibo:Pre-Print that even not exist in bibo. For me that qualifies more like a custom vocabulary schema.

I propose to either take the full list of owl-classes and mark Pre-Print as a custom additoinal concept, or to mark the current version as a SSHOC vocabulary derived from bibo, or look for another better suited publication-type vocabulary.

Talked with Matej on this: we should discuss to find a better suited vocabulary, e.g. the list of types from Zotero.

@vronk @vronk @laureD19 @egray523 what are your opinions?

There is also a small discussion in https://gitlab.gwdg.de/sshoc/data-ingestion/-/issues/61

PS: Currently we use bibo:Journal, bibo:Book, bibo:Conference, bibo:Article and bibo:Pre-Print (see: https://marketplace-api.sshopencloud.eu/api/vocabularies/publication-type)

dpancic commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @egray523 on Jun 24, 2021, 13:30

hmm. In terms of interoperability, I think we should probably find a standard that already exists and will not require us to add any fields. Unless we have friends that run Bibliographic Ontology and they can quickly add Preprint for us :)

dpancic commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @laureD19 on Aug 5, 2021, 15:36

+1 for reusing something that already exists instead of having a new vocab to maintain as part of the MP. I'm far for being on expert on these questions, but I like the Zotero Item Types. Although it doesn't cover what @vronk was mentioning in a comment of the editorial guidelines "Data-Paper" and "Data Journals"

dpancic commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @laureD19 on Aug 5, 2021, 15:37

as I clean the editorial guidelines doc, see also @sbudden comment: "BIBO seems fine to me. Currently the cost-benefit ration of implementing a granular schema for bibliographic formats seems not clear to me. I would expect to have more grey literature in the marketplace than other formats."

dpancic commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @KlausIllmayer on Oct 21, 2021, 13:03

Seems that we agree to stay with BIBO, but it is still unclear to me how we handle our incompatibilies to BIBO. We don't have all BIBO-classes available and introduce classes that do not exist in BIBO (see description of this issue). We should agree either to fully support BIBO or to call it different, e.g. BIBO inspired SSHOC individual vocabulary. But honestly I would prefer to stay at the standard and to get rid of the pre-print stuff and instead have at least a workflow how to add necessary BIBO classes to our vocabulary. Therefore I need to re-open this task @laureD19 @sbudden @egray523 to get more clear anwers.

dpancic commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @laureD19 on Oct 21, 2021, 15:42

+1 to stay with the standard and get rid of the concepts we initially wanted to add. @sbudden and @egray523 any strong opinion against this?

dpancic commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @egray523 on Oct 21, 2021, 17:20

I agree, let's go with the simple option and if the real need to have further categories is added, we can then cross that bridge.