 |
 |
On Jul 16, 2007, at 11:25 AM, K.G. Schneider wrote: > I see some work is done in metadata that can express the > relationship between articles in a journal. But I'm curious how > much we (librarians) care about this business of fidelity or > whether it's just another silent victim of change. I worry that > without intending to we could hasten the death of an entire area of > literature. Why does it matter what librarians think about the change in formats? The readers are the people who need to have a voice in how their publications work -- what makes them useful and what would make them better. In this case, it's researchers, not librarians[1], who should make the call. As someone who doesn't read and use Cell on a daily basis, I can't say whether its representation in a database is well- suited to its use in research or not. In other words... I think you're taking this question to the wrong audience. You'll probably get more relevant answers if you ask people who do research in a particular field. From our initial discussions with faculty on the Bibapp, I hypothesize that you'd see very different kinds of answers from researchers in different areas -- definitely between humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences, and very likely at a more fine-grained level, too. In some cases, 'journal-ness' is probably important. In others, the traditional model is probably inferior to other options. [1] - Except, of course, for library-related journals. -Nate Wendt Library UW - Madison