[OAI-implementers] Designating as Peer Review

[Farrell,Gabriel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oai-implementers-bounces at openarchives.org 
> [mailto:oai-implementers-bounces at openarchives.org] On Behalf 
> Of Thomas Fischer
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:38 AM
> To: oai-implementers at openarchives.org
> Subject: AW: [OAI-implementers] Designating as Peer Review
> 
> > In the ePrints AP information about peer-reviewed status is 
> carried in 
> > the eprint:status property
> > (http://purl.org/eprint/terms/status) using the Eprints Status 
> > Vocabulary
> > 
> > http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_Stat
> > us_Vocabulary_Encoding_Scheme
> > 
> > Status and Type are intentionally separated.
> > 
> > Andy
> 
> I see, and this makes sense as this property is essentially 
> independent of the type.
> (Sorry I missed that.)
> But this brings us back to the initial question: How to 
> encode this in DC simple for the OAI-PMH?
> Could one add "; peer-reviewed" to whatever is contained in 
> the type field?
> Anything like "dc.description.peerreviewed" will require a 
> custom format for OAI-PMH and diminish interoperability.
> 
> Thomas 

Thanks for bringing it back around, Thomas.  I was thinking the same
thing.  It seems that multiple occurences of dc:type are allowed[1], so
it would be possible to add a dc:type="peer-reviewed" to any record,
even one with a type already assigned.  

It would be easiest for us, on a local level, to follow the UK
vocabulary at
http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/html/dctype.html
and consider anything of dc:type="Article" to be peer-reviewed,
reserving dc:type="Unrefereed Article" for those cases when an article
is not peer-reviewed.  We have already been filling our dc.type field
with "Article", "Thesis", etc. and a single line in the DSpace config
file, to enable searches on the dc.type field, along with a
"type:article" in the search query allows me to pull up only those
records with this distinction.  This use of the UK vocabulary would be
for the value of type rather than the qualifier, however, for which it
was not meant.  Also, it's hard to say how widely this vocabulary has
been adopted and what kind of backing it has -- the document is ten
years old and not much referred to.

I'll be bringing this topic up on dc-general, as well.  For those who
subscribe to both lists, apologies for any perceived duplication.

Gabe

[1] http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2005-06-17/Some_DCMI_

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAI-implementers mailing list
> List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe:
> http://www.openarchives.org/mailman/listinfo/oai-implementers
> 
>