discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

[KirbyMeister <kirbymeister AT gmail.com>]

Looks like there is two definitions of 'type':

Type is the format of the data. (MIME Type)
Type is the intended audience.

We could go with Type = Data format, and Content = Intended Audience,
so for example:

Type = Text || PDF
Content = Academic Paper

So that we can search by what the data means or how the data is formatted.

Hope you got at least half of that. ;)

On Apr 5, 2005 8:41 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle AT kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Well, I guess I'll de-lurk on this one ;-) Having been through numerous
> discussions as to what makes a publication "academic" and what that
> might mean, I think the discussants are generally too narrow in their
> views. There are academic publications, to be sure, and by that we
> generally mean peer-reviewed or published by an academic press, but
> there's not a true one-to-one between the authors and producers of these
> publications and their actual audience. (read: the academic world is not
> really in the ivory tower that it thinks its in.) There are academic
> activities that make use of "popular" information, and there are
> non-academics who read and benefit from academic publications. So I
> don't think that you can easily say that you have written only "for
> academics" although you may be publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.
> The distinctions that make sense to me are "type" as a description of
> the publication, and "audience" as a description of the
> "reading/knowledge level" required. However, "type" is a morass -- every
> citation database I worked with had a different set of types, often as
> many as a dozen or more, and none were universal. In general, types
> varied by the discipline, with sciences having distinctly different
> types from the humanities. That said,  I will risk all by suggesting
> that the following may be what the  academic folks are intending:
> 
> type = scholarly publication (which means peer-reviewed, may or may not
> be non-profit, and generally follows guidelines set up by the
> publication relating to citations, etc.)
> type = research article (which means that it is generally based on
> "science" and reveals the results of what most would consider to be a
> research methodology)
> 
> audience = graduate/research (audience is generally a "level" concept --
> from early grades through research)
> 
> kc
> 
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 
> > Evan Prodromou wrote:
> >
> >> What about using the DCMI Audience element? Type=Text,
> >> Audience=Academic would indicate that this is a text work primarily
> >> for academics.
> >
> >
> > That seems reasonable.
> >
> > Other possibilities:
> >
> > * dc:type (wouldn't conflict with present use, value would just be
> > from a different vocabulary)
> >
> > * dc:subject
> >
> > * dcterms:educationLevel (probably not)
> >
> > For any of the above, can anyone recommend a vocabulary to use that
> > includes something like "Academic" (for audience) or "Scholarly
> > Publication" for the others?
> >
> > PRISM defines a list of
> > http://prismstandard.org/vocabularies/1.2/resourcetype.xml which
> > includes "article", intended to be used with dc:type, but that could
> > be any sort of article.  It also includes "journal" but that isn't
> > quite right.
> >
> > PRISM also defines
> > http://prismstandard.org/vocabularies/1.2/category.xml (intellectual
> > genre) which they recommend for prism:category but we could use with
> > dc:subject or dc:type I suppose, but that list doesn't contain
> > anything like "scholarly article".
> >
> 
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle AT kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-metadata mailing list
> metadata AT creativecommons.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata
>