Dublin core fields for article title and publication name?


Are there best practices for including both an article title AND the journal/publication name in Omeka's Dublin Core? Would I incorporate both using two entries in the Title field, as in Title #1: Organic Gardening, Title #2: The Journal of Organic Gardening?

Or, if not, what field would publication name map to in Omeka?

Thank you!

Personally, I think Dublin Core "Source" ("A related resource from which the described resource is derived") would be the most appropriate field. You could also create a custom item type (e.g. "Article") that had more specific fields (e.g. "Publication") if you felt that you needed that level of specificity. (You might also want to customize your theme to better communicate the hierarchy of the metadata, for example, by placing publication data closer to the primary title).

I agree with Erin about using "Source". Alternatively, if you have additional bibliographic data about the publication, you might want to install the Dublin Core Extended plugin and use something like "Is Part Of" or "Bibliographic Citation".

Thanks very much, Erin and Patrick--I really appreciate your help!

I had been thinking of Source more as the Archive in alibrary that's the source of the materials (as in digitized articles from publications collected by such an archive) ... but maybe I need to create a new item type for Repository, or use the extended plug-in as Patrick suggests.

Interesting. It might hinge on exactly how you are defining an "item" for your site and needs, and its relation to the archive. Is an "item" as you are using it just the article, or the entire journal?

In these cases, the items are simply articles; the class is mostly finding these in about four publications (journals, newspapers, etc.) that are housed in the Archives/Special Collections dept. at our college.

In most cases, though, the items are simpler -- photos from the archive, etc.

So, we need a metadata field that could cover: publication name; one that could cover: repository (we were thinking of Source for that one); and one for Collection (to cover the archival collection that the item is coming from).

Aha -- I think I've got at least most of it: Great idea re: the extended DC. So, I'll be putting the Publication Name under Bibliographic Citation; and the Collection under Is Part Of.

We have two fields we still need, one for the college name (which I now have mapped to Rights Holder), and one for the Source (which is the Special Collections dept.).

My question now is: Can I create a field for Institution/Repository? Or should I use Publisher for that, as the Publisher of our digitized objects? Then, I could just map the Source as is to the Special Collections dept. ...

Not only am I not a lawyer, I am also not a metadata librarian, but here's how I'd probably think of it.

I'd pick up Erin's suggestion of using Item Types. It sounds like you have two types: photo and article.

Then, what "source" and the other field mean could be different for the two: "source" for an article would be the newspaper, source for the photo would be the archive. If you went that way, that might or might not change the use of Bibliographic Citation and Is Part Of.

For both those item types, you could create an Institution/Repository field. That might be more accurate than the Publisher field, since it would run into the same dual-meaning as for source: the publisher of an article would be the journal publisher, which the publisher of the photo might be the archive.

The heart of this approach is to interpret the DC fields differently for the two item types, which I think is fine and might help clarify what should go where. That might introduce complexity elsewhere in the workflow for the the class, so it seems like a choice of how to balance the needs for what you want your site to do.

Patrick, thanks so much -- lots to mull over (but, there almost always is with metadata, not to mention with law!). You've been a huge help.