catalog_of_copyright_entries_project icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
catalog_of_copyright_entries_project copied to clipboard

Published 20 hours ago • verified publisher icon NYPL

Great deal of change over time. Rely on convention over validity?

Open seanredmond opened this issue 6 years ago • 0 comments

Looking for the simplest format from different volumes, it's clear how much change there is over time, with the earliest volumes being much more complex than the later.

1927 https://archive.org/stream/catalogofcopyrig241libr#page/3/mode/1up screen shot 2018-03-20 at 11 31 51 am

1930 https://archive.org/stream/catalogofcopyri271libr#page/2/mode/1up screen shot 2018-03-20 at 11 30 31 am

1951 https://archive.org/stream/catalogofcopyri351libr#page/402/mode/1up screen shot 2018-03-20 at 11 32 45 am

1962 https://archive.org/stream/catalogofcopyrig3161lib#page/1141/mode/1up screen shot 2018-03-20 at 11 35 46 am

The last one is easy enough (a little different from the current DTD based on some discussions):

<copyrightEntry id="[GUID]" regnum="A578172">
    <author><authorName>ADAMS, O. R.</authorName></author>
    <title>Lameness in horses</title>. © <publisher><pubName claimant="yes">Lea & Febiger</pubName></publisher>;
    <regDate date="1962-08-10">10Aug62</regDate>; <registrationNumber>A578172</registrationNumber>.
</copyrightEntry>

But a definition that works for this and for Rabbit Diseases while accommodating a lot of CDATA punctuation?

I'm leaning towards defining <copyrightEntry> as ANY rather than trying to be really clever about it. It might be more effective to let a program check that everything does indeed have a registration number instead relying on the validity of the XML. We can be more specific in the definition of some of the parts.

seanredmond avatar Mar 20 '18 15:03 seanredmond