<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>It does have me thinking… we already have the biblio_metadata table set up to allow arbitrary metadata to be added to a bibliographic record. Really we just need a system for doing CRUD, have code for rendering views of the data, and code for allowing that data to be searchable*.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In terms of CRUD, data rendering, and I suppose even indexing, plugins might be a useful way to experiment with this functionality. (Of course, there’s always the danger that people go off on a million different custom pathways which makes support a nightmare.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This also has me thinking about RDF/Linked Data. I think in the past I had too much of an hopelessly idealist vision of how Linked Data should work, but Fedora Commons has inspired me to see RDF as just another metadata format that can handle countless schemas. With Fedora Commons, the subject URI is your web URI, the predicate is whatever schema URI you want to use, and then the object is often a literal string. Fedora Commons doesn’t use a triplestore out of the box, so we don’t need to worry about that right now. We could just store some RDF/XML or JSON-LD in the biblio_metadata table (personally I like working programmatically with JSON-LD but RDF/XML is probably more MySQL friendly due to its XML parsing functionality – although MariaDB 10.2 adds JSON support I think which should be available in Debian Buster. RDF/XML would also be XSLT friendly).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>*Technically, Zebra can handle any XML, but we just give it MARCXML. There’s no reason Zebra couldn’t handle more XML-based formats. That being said, I think we’ve all agreed Elasticsearch is the future, and I think there’s already work done/being done on that to allow arbitrary metadata to be added?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>David Cook<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Systems Librarian<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Prosentient Systems<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>72/330 Wattle St<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ultimo, NSW 2007<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Australia<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Office: 02 9212 0899<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Direct: 02 8005 0595<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> Koha-devel <koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>dcook@prosentient.com.au<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, 17 February 2020 12:00 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'koha-devel' <koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org><br><b>Subject:</b> [Koha-devel] Adding peer review status to article records<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have a library interested in adding peer review status to their article records in Koha.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The short-term solution is to use a local MARC field and do a code customization for it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>However, peer review status is the kind of thing that the library industry will probably see more and more of going forward into the digital future. It seems to me that a long-term solution would be wiser.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sure enough, ExLibris Alma and OCLC WorldCat Discovery already have this functionality:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://help.oclc.org/Discovery_and_Reference/WorldCat_Discovery/Search_results/How_item_bibliographic_data_is_displayed">https://help.oclc.org/Discovery_and_Reference/WorldCat_Discovery/Search_results/How_item_bibliographic_data_is_displayed</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/010_2018/11_February_2018/Alma_February_2018_Release_Notes/02Resource_Management_-_February_2018_Enhancements#Peer_Review_and_Open_Access">https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/010_2018/11_February_2018/Alma_February_2018_Release_Notes/02Resource_Management_-_February_2018_Enhancements#Peer_Review_and_Open_Access</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>OCLC uses a non-MARC method, whereas ExLibris rely on a magic string in a 500 field for peer review status. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That being said, I’m not sure what the best long-term solution would be to add this metadata to a bibliographic record. What do you all think?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>David Cook<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Systems Librarian<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Prosentient Systems<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>72/330 Wattle St<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ultimo, NSW 2007<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Australia<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Office: 02 9212 0899<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Direct: 02 8005 0595<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>