Home | Public Area

Comment #00384 - data elements in the supply chain - rp-19-201x_ODI_draft_for_comments_final.pdf (revision #2)

Comment 384
New (Unresolved)
NISO RP-19-201x, Open Discovery Initiative: Promoting Transparency in Discovery (draft for comments) (Revision 2)
Comment Submitted by
Beth Guay
2013-11-18 14:29:01


I may be confused but I believe a more clearly defined and delineated table of basic metadata in Table 1 (3.2.1.2) is in order. Further, data elements in Table 6 should be harmonized with those in table 1 (cf. “Print identifier” “Online identifier” “Standard identifier”). I will refer you to Kristin Antelman's comment no. 10, “Identifying identifiers,” in her supporting file submitted to the KBART group, at http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/view_comment.php?comment_id=303.



The ODI draft recommends and references relevant standards for best practices for the transfer of data (in section 3.3.3)  from discovery service providers, yet the data elements named in Table 1 in 3.2.1.2, Basic Metadata, as presented, would not support an extensive level of interoperability, or efficient exchange and reuse of data transferred from content providers to discovery service providers.  Data that may be recieved by content providers should be taken advantage of.  For example, the NISO/EDItEUR ONIX for Serials Serial Release Notification (SRN) Format, version 1.0, published Mar. 2012, and accompanying Onix for Serials Codelists Issue 6 (published May 2013) would support the identification of the DOI and ISSN of a new journal article from a publisher to a content provider. Table 1 in this draft as presented does not clearly indicate that such identifiers would be explicitly identifiable as DOI and ISSN.



 

Submitter Proposed Solution


If my confusion is justified,



 



  1. Antelman’s comment no. 10 to the KBART group should be applied to this metadata application profile.


  2. Data elements in Table 6 should be harmonized with those in table 1 (cf. “Print identifier” “Online identifier” “Standard identifier”).


  3. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 could be revisited with an eye on the big picture of efficient data transfer focusing on existing standards available to the "actors" from the beginning to the end of the stream. In particular, Section 3.3.3 could be introduced earlier on, e.g., as no. 3 in Section 3.1. The first sentence could read "ODI recommends that content providers and discovery services implement the following practices for the transfer of data from one party to another."  Best practices for transfer of data from content providers to discovery service providers to customers should encourage support of streamlined data transfer from the beginning to the end of the supply chain.