You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Metadata subgroup divided on how specific this vocabulary should be. Currently
the recommendation includes values of primary, short, long, sub, series,
collection, edition, slang. Main question: inconsistent publisher use of
"series" vs. "collection," lack of clarity as to how they nest. Some feel we
should not attempt to specify such values at all, and simply rely on integers
to distinguish title-type 1, title-type 2, etc.; others think these specific
recommended types are useful, but the spec prose needs to explain the
distinctions clearly.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by bkasd...@apexcovantage.com on 9 Nov 2010 at 6:27
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I certainly agree with this; we have MARC and ONIX references for role, ONIX
references for scheme, and so on [1].
Would clearly be preferable if we could delegate values for title-type to some
list defined in ONIX, MARC or MODS. Graham, BillK, any suggestions?
[1]
http://epub-revision.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/build/spec/epub30-publications.htm
l#elemdef-opf-meta-property-values-ancillary
Original comment by markus.g...@gmail.com on 27 Jan 2011 at 1:00
This issue has been addressed in r2823.
title-type allows a string value which can be modified by the scheme property
to indicate the code list or other source it is drawn from.
Original comment by mgarrish on 25 Apr 2011 at 8:38
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
bkasd...@apexcovantage.com
on 9 Nov 2010 at 6:27The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: