Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
NISO-NFAIS Supplemental Journal Article Materials Working Group: An Update on an Industry Initiative
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

NISO-NFAIS Supplemental Journal Article Materials Working Group: An Update on an Industry Initiative

18,176
views

Published on

An Exchange of Ideas: Meeting of Earth and Space Science Librarians …

An Exchange of Ideas: Meeting of Earth and Space Science Librarians
San Antonio, TX
20 March 2012

Published in: Technology, Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
18,176
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • NFAIS Best Practices for publishing journal articles: One key recommendation on supplemental materials was that the journal make a clear connection between an article and the supplemental materials that accompany it. Once published, the supplemental materials should be considered part of the journal’s archival record and should not be changed without a clear statement of correction. Publishers, the document noted, should always supply a recommended citation as well as good, descriptive metadata for those materials. A&i services covering the journal article should include the presence of supplemental data in the article record, indicating file types and DOI.“No good deed goes unpunished” “As you brew, so must you drink”
  • False pretenses: Pseudo-supplemental (treated as if it were supplemental but it is not)This is a screenshot of Cell article (doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.04.005). Movie S1 (highlighted in yellow) is mentioned in the first (!) section of the article. The movie is perfectly integrated in the HTML, it can be played in context, on the right. Clearly, Movie S1 is essential to the article's science; there is nothing supplemental about it. And yet, that very movie, Movie S1, shows up when one clicks on the "Supplemental Information" tab. Why?! After all, this is not your grandfather's print-only journal that has no option but to treat non-printable content as if it were supplemental -- this is the Article of the Future (actually, of the Present now) itself! it's not as if Cell were not capable of integrating the movie; indeed, it did incorporate it into the narrative very nicely, as the screenshot demonstrates. But if you look at the PDF version, the movie is not embedded in it. They could for sure, but they chose not to. Why, furthermore, despite the successful integration of essential movie into the HTML narrative, they still placed that movie on the Supplemental Information tab?Puzzled, I contacted Keith Wollman, Cell's VP for Content and Operations. He wrote, "we don't currently embed movies in the article PDF because we are conservative about the archival nature of that PDF in response to concerns from librarians."And then it dawned on me: it is not simply paper vs. electronic divide that brings into being the concept of "pseudo-supplemental” materials: rather, it is the VoR! Whether we have an old-fashioned print-only journal or a cutting-edge one, like Cell, they make the same decision: treat essential content as if it were supplemental. Why? Whether the VoR is print or a static PDF (or maybe PDF/A), the publisher is unable or unwilling to embed dynamic objects into the VoR. On the other side of the fence are, for example, the Journal of Neuroscience, which says that they will embed the dynamic content into its PDF, or AGU journals. For the former, the VoR is dynamic PDF; for the latter, XML.There are some interesting MARKUP implications.Suppose that the Cell article contained two movies: one essential and one truly supplemental. Outside the article's context it would have been impossible to ascertain which movie bore which functional relationship to the article. A visible manifestation of that would be the fact that both movies would appear on the same Supplemental Information tab. Which means that the implicit degree of importance (normally inferred by the reader from the context) must be made explicit: this one is essential -- you must watch it; that one is supplemental -- you may skip it.Interestingly enough, J. of Neuroscience may face the same problem: they say, there is no need for supplemental materials, we'll embed them into the PDF, and that's it. Now, suppose the submission, again, contains two movies: one essential and one supplemental. Are they going to reject the supplemental movie and embed only the essential one? Or are they going to embed both? If the latter then again, the reader will not be able to differentiate which is which.
  • False pretenses: Pseudo-supplemental (treated as if it were supplemental but it is not)This is a screenshot of Cell article (doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.04.005). Movie S1 (highlighted in yellow) is mentioned in the first (!) section of the article. The movie is perfectly integrated in the HTML, it can be played in context, on the right. Clearly, Movie S1 is essential to the article's science; there is nothing supplemental about it. And yet, that very movie, Movie S1, shows up when one clicks on the "Supplemental Information" tab. Why?! After all, this is not your grandfather's print-only journal that has no option but to treat non-printable content as if it were supplemental -- this is the Article of the Future (actually, of the Present now) itself! it's not as if Cell were not capable of integrating the movie; indeed, it did incorporate it into the narrative very nicely, as the screenshot demonstrates. But if you look at the PDF version, the movie is not embedded in it. They could for sure, but they chose not to. Why, furthermore, despite the successful integration of essential movie into the HTML narrative, they still placed that movie on the Supplemental Information tab?Puzzled, I contacted Keith Wollman, Cell's VP for Content and Operations. He wrote, "we don't currently embed movies in the article PDF because we are conservative about the archival nature of that PDF in response to concerns from librarians."And then it dawned on me: it is not simply paper vs. electronic divide that brings into being the concept of "pseudo-supplemental” materials: rather, it is the VoR! Whether we have an old-fashioned print-only journal or a cutting-edge one, like Cell, they make the same decision: treat essential content as if it were supplemental. Why? Whether the VoR is print or a static PDF (or maybe PDF/A), the publisher is unable or unwilling to embed dynamic objects into the VoR. On the other side of the fence are, for example, the Journal of Neuroscience, which says that they will embed the dynamic content into its PDF, or AGU journals. For the former, the VoR is dynamic PDF; for the latter, XML.There are some interesting MARKUP implications.Suppose that the Cell article contained two movies: one essential and one truly supplemental. Outside the article's context it would have been impossible to ascertain which movie bore which functional relationship to the article. A visible manifestation of that would be the fact that both movies would appear on the same Supplemental Information tab. Which means that the implicit degree of importance (normally inferred by the reader from the context) must be made explicit: this one is essential -- you must watch it; that one is supplemental -- you may skip it.Interestingly enough, J. of Neuroscience may face the same problem: they say, there is no need for supplemental materials, we'll embed them into the PDF, and that's it. Now, suppose the submission, again, contains two movies: one essential and one supplemental. Are they going to reject the supplemental movie and embed only the essential one? Or are they going to embed both? If the latter then again, the reader will not be able to differentiate which is which.
  • Transcript

    • 1. NISO-NFAIS Supplemental Journal Article Materials Working Group:An Update on an Industry Initiative Alexander (‘Sasha’) Schwarzman, MLS American Geophysical Union sschwarzman@agu.org Co-chair, NISO/NFAIS Working Group on Journal Article Supplemental Materials AN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS: MEETING OF LIBRARIANS San Antonio, TX 20 March 2012
    • 2. Contents• Introduction and • Recommended business examples practices• Benefits and challenges • Technical considerations• Community response  Identification• NISO-NFAIS working  Preservation group  Packaging  Metadata• Supplemental materials classification • Practical challenges• Project scope • Futuredevelopments
    • 3. Deluge! Chart courtesy of Ken Beauchamp, American Society for Clinical Investigation
    • 4. ExamplesCell, Volume 144, Issue 4, 480-497 18 February 2011doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.01.033Revisiting the Central Dogma One Molecule at a TimeSupplemental Data for Bustamante et al.Document S1. Extended Discussion, Two Figures, and Supplemental References (PDF 534 kb)
    • 5. Examples (cont’d)
    • 6. Examples (cont’d)Supplemental Material forMale-Male and Male-Female Aggression May Influence Mating Associations in Wild Octopuses (Abdopusaculeatus)Christine L. Huffard, Roy L. Caldwell, and FarnisBonekaJournal of Comparative Psychology, Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 38–46.View articleFiles:Huffard_Supplementary_Table_1.docHuffard_Abdopus_fight.mpg This content was submitted by the author as supplemental material for an article published in APA’s PsycARTICLES. The content is presented as the author submitted it. APA assumes no liability for errors or omissions and makes no warranties of any kind. APA assumes no responsibility for any reader’s use of the materials. All questions regarding the supplemental data should be directed to the corresponding author of the published article. The reader is expected to respect the intellectual property of the author and the copyright of the American Psychological Association (APA). The content should not be reused without permission from the author and APA.
    • 7. Examples (cont’d)
    • 8. Examples (cont’d)Supporting Info for: Yu J., et al. (2005), The Genomes ofOryza sativa: A History of Duplications, PLoS Biol. 3(2), e38.…Figure S7. Duplicated Segments in the Beijing indica Assembly. Plotted in the Manner of Figure 6, and with a Total of 12 Panels(507 KB ZIP).Table S1. Raw Data for Beijing indica and Syngentajaponica AssembliesRead length is the number of Q20 bases. Clone sizes are specified in terms of 10th and 90th percentiles.(16 KB XLS).…
    • 9. Examples (cont’d)Cell, Volume 145, Issue 5, 650-663 27 May 2011doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.05.011Vertebrate Segmentation: From Cyclic Gene Networks to ScoliosisSupplemental Data for Pourquié et al.Movie S1. Clock and Wavefront Model for Vertebrate Segmentation, Related to Figure 1 (MP4 2539 kb) This model proposes that the production of somites during embryogenesis results from a molecular oscillator.Movie S2. Imaging Clock Oscillations in the Mouse Embryo, Related to Figure 1 (MOV 8211 kb) The periodic, anterior-traveling waves of cyclic gene expression. See Aulehla et al., 2008 for additional details.
    • 10. What is in the Pandora’s box?• Multimedia: video, audio, virtual reality• Chemical, crystallographic, and protein structures, gene sequences, 3-D images• Computer programs (algorithms, code, libraries, and executables)• Tables, Figures, Text (Experimental procedures, Extended methodology, Survey results, Derivations, Extended bibliographies, …)• Data sets (data sets are not the focus of this group)
    • 11. Supplemental materials: Good idea!Enabling technology makes it possible for:• authors to present supporting evidence, e.g., multimedia, data sets, computer programs;• researchers to reveal in-depth studies that would not be available in print;• readers to replicate experiments and verify results.
    • 12. Questions to ponder• Degree of importance. Are all components of supplemental materials equally important? As a busy reviewer or reader, which ones must I focus on?• Discoverability. How do I (librarian, indexer) know the article has supplemental materials? (Deadbeat parent)• Identification. How do I know which article is the parent of orphaned / abandoned supplemental materials?• Citing and linking. How do I provide a persistent link to the supplemental materials, and how do I cite them?
    • 13. Questions to ponder (cont’d)• Viability and preservation. Will it be possible to render (read, play, execute, etc.) sup. mat. in 20 years? 200 years? It is likely that sup. mat. will have to undergo periodic conversion. Then, do I look at the original or the converted object? Are they equivalent?• Transmission and packaging. When fulfilling an interlibrary loan request or transmitting sup. mat. to an archive, how do I package them with the article? How do I ensure that nothing was lost or corrupted?
    • 14. Questions to ponder (cont’d)• Intellectual property rights. Who has rights over sup. mat., and where are they recorded?• Curatorial responsibility. Who has custody over sup. mat.: author, publisher, library, data center, institutional repository, archive, any other actor?• Business models. If someone is going to provide identification, description, linking, preservation, and other processing of sup. mat., what sustainable business models could support the expense?
    • 15. Who cares? You should – if you are an …• Author / Editor• Reviewer• Reader• Publisher• Hosting platform / Institutional Repository / Data center / Individual• A&I service• Reference linking and Citation indexing service• Librarian / Archivist / Historian of scholarship
    • 16. Researcher community responseOne camp:• More supplemental materials should be made available!• Technology will solve most problems!The other camp:• Scholarly journal is not a data dump!• An article is not an FTP site!
    • 17. Publisher community response• 2009: Cell imposes limits on the number and kind of supplemental materials accepted• 2010: The Journal of Neuroscience bans supplemental materials altogether; intends to embed dynamic content in its articles’ PDF• 2011: The Journal of Experimental Medicine limits supplemental materials only to "essential supporting information"
    • 18. Chronology• February 2009: NFAIS Best Practices for publishing journal articles• November 2009: Schwarzman’sWhite Paper on supplemental materials survey results• January 2010: NISO-NFAIS supplemental materials Thought Leader Roundtable• August 2010: NISO-NFAIS Working Group on journal article supplemental materials
    • 19. NISO - NFAIS Working Group
    • 20. Business Working Group – policiesCo-chairs: Linda Beebe (APA), Marie McVeigh (Thomson-Reuters ISI)• Recommended Practices: scope and general principles• Definitions: sup. mat., article, data, metadata, etc.• Curation and life cycle: selection, peer review, editing, presentation, providing context, referencing, citing, managing/hosting, discovery, preservation• Intellectual property rights management• Roles and responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, publishers, libraries, A&I services, repositories
    • 21. Technical Working Group – “how” Co-chairs: Dave Martinsen (ACS), Sasha Schwarzman (AGU)• Identifiers for supplemental materials• Linking to and from supplemental materials• Archiving, preservation, and forward migration of supplemental materials• Packaging, exchange, and delivery of supplemental materials• Metadata and granularity of markup
    • 22. Supplemental materials: Pseudo vs. truly• Print model: article layout implicitly reflected functional distinction between essential and nonessential elements (body vs. appendix)• Mixed electronic-print model: both essential and nonessential components are often treated as “supplemental materials”• Is the material essential or not? This must be stated explicitly for machine and human reader
    • 23. Pseudo-supplemental (example)
    • 24. Classification facet 1: Importance• Integral (“pseudo-supplemental”) Essential for full understanding of work but treated as if it were supplemental. Rationale: technical, business, or logistical limitations• Additional (“truly supplemental”) Not critical for understanding the work. Relevant and useful – but still optional
    • 25. Classification facet 2: Custody• Publisher Recommended practices offered• Institutional repository or Data center The publisher has no responsibility or authority over content and does not host it. No recommended practices offered• Individual Not appropriate for hosting supplemental materials
    • 26. Supplemental materials classifications: Integral, Additional, Related
    • 27. Recommended business practices Integral content Additional contentSelecting / At the same level as core May not be reviewed at thePeer reviewing article same levelCopyediting At the same level as core May not be edited at the same article. Should be noted if not level. If so, should be notedReferencing Cite / link at the same level as Provide in-text citation andwithin article table or fig. No ref. list entry: link at the appropriate point in this content is part of article text, rather than at the endIdentifying DOI must be assigned DOI may be assignedReferences Integrate references into the Keep references separatewithin sup. mat. ref. list of the core article from the core article ref. list (Biophysical Journal)
    • 28. Recommended business practices Integral content (cont’d) Additional contentPreserving Preserve at the same level as Take preservation into the core article consideration when accepting Provide the same level of If uncertain about preservation, metadata markup have author submit to a trusted repository and link to it Include in migration plansIntellectual Treat rights in the same Determination of rights forproperty manner as the rights for the Additional content may differ andrights core article should be transparent to users Anyone who has access to online article should also have access to Integral content
    • 29. Recommended business practices (cont’d)• Identifying / linking and managing sup. mat.  Sup. mats. should be linked, bi-directionally, to and from core article  Integral and Additional content should not be mixed  If journal content is hosted by a host / aggregator it should also deliver supplemental materials  An author’s website is not an appropriate place for the sole posting of supplemental materials
    • 30. Recommended business practices (cont’d)• Discovering supplemental materials  Consistent placement, naming, and navigation  Indicate sup. mat. presence onToC, landing page  Link to Integral content from within the article  Link to Additional content on the first PDF or HTML page of the article  Aid A&I services by including metadata that indicate the purpose and format of the sup. mat.
    • 31. Recommended business practices (cont’d)• Providing context for sup. materials Include on a landing page or within the content:  Core article citation and DOI  Title and/or succinct statement about the content  For multimedia: player, file extension, and size  List multiple files  Browser information, if supplemental content rendition is browser-dependent  Sup. mat. DOI or another identifier, if assigned
    • 32. Technical considerations• Heterogeneity: an archive (ZIP, TAR, RAR), a document (PDF, MS Word), or a virtual collection (web page) may contain both Integral and Additional content. The two may need to be treated differently in terms of identification, linking, preservation, and metadata assignment
    • 33. Technical considerations (cont’d)
    • 34. Technical considerations (cont’d)Supplemental Material forMale-Male and Male-Female Aggression May Influence Mating Associations in Wild Octopuses (Abdopusaculeatus)Christine L. Huffard, Roy L. Caldwell, and FarnisBonekaJournal of Comparative Psychology, Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 38–46.View articleFiles:Huffard_Supplementary_Table_1.docHuffard_Abdopus_fight.mpg This content was submitted by the author as supplemental material for an article published in APA’s PsycARTICLES. The content is presented as the author submitted it. APA assumes no liability for errors or omissions and makes no warranties of any kind. APA assumes no responsibility for any reader’s use of the materials. All questions regarding the supplemental data should be directed to the corresponding author of the published article. The reader is expected to respect the intellectual property of the author and the copyright of the American Psychological Association (APA). The content should not be reused without permission from the author and APA.
    • 35. Technical considerations (cont’d)• Hierarchy and Recurrence: an archive may contain a tree with many branches and sub- branches with nested objects and groups• Granularity down: what to identify — entire sup. mat., groups, objects, …? At what level do you stop?• Granularity up: link to a specific item within the core article or to the core article as a whole?
    • 36. Technical considerations (cont’d)Supporting Info for: Yu J., et al. (2005), The Genomes ofOryza sativa: A History of Duplications, PLoS Biol. 3(2), e38.Figure S6. Coordinated Annotation of the Individual Chromosomes for Beijing indica and SyngentajaponicaWe depict all the genetic markers, nr-KOME cDNAs, FGENESH gene predictions, and transposable elements identified by RepeatMasker. Genes are depicted as WH (colored blue) or NH (colored red) based on their similarity to Arabidopsis. TEs are decomposed into classes I, II, and III. Correspondence between indica and japonica is indicated by drawing a connecting line between the 5′ ends of the nr-KOME cDNAs that clearly align to both assemblies.(9.6 MB ZIP).
    • 37. Examples (cont’d)Cell, Volume 145, Issue 5, 650-663 27 May 2011doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.05.011Vertebrate Segmentation: From Cyclic Gene Networks to ScoliosisSupplemental Data for Pourquié et al.Movie S1. Clock and Wavefront Model for Vertebrate Segmentation, Related to Figure 1 (MP4 2539 kb) This model proposes that the production of somites during embryogenesis results from a molecular oscillator.Movie S2. Imaging Clock Oscillations in the Mouse Embryo, Related to Figure 1 (MOV 8211 kb) The periodic, anterior-traveling waves of cyclic gene expression. See Aulehla et al., 2008 for additional details.
    • 38. Technical considerations (cont’d)Supplemental objects types:• Individual (atomic) items• Physical containers (e.g., ZIP, PDF) with:  unrelated objects  logically different objects that share some common metadata, e.g., a series of graphs or images• Logical wrappers
    • 39. Technical considerations (cont’d)• Logical wrapper: a shell around multiple physical representations of the same logical object, e.g., A chemical structure represented by:  a connection table,  an image of a molecule in a static orientation, and  an interactive application allowing manipulation by the viewer. Protein-related information represented by:  analytical measurements,  chemical structure, and  derived structures.
    • 40. Identification1. All Integral Supplemental content MUST be assigned its own identifier Rationale: Any content item that is critical to the understanding of the article but which is located and maintained separately from the article body should be uniquely identified to enhance linking reliability (e.g., hosting of the content item may diverge from that of the article body).
    • 41. Identification (cont’d)2. All supplemental content items that are applicable to more than one article SHOULD be assigned an external identifier Rationale: Linking to the content item may need to occur from various publisher platforms. Examples: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2009.1248/mm9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/oif-2008-table2-en
    • 42. Identification (cont’d)3. Supplemental content items that are an aggregate of (potentially many) individual elements or records SHOULD be assigned an external identifier. Rationale: The content has its own intrinsic value outside the context of the article and should be discoverable on its own. Examples: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030038.st004
    • 43. Identification (cont’d)4. Supplemental content items that are uniquely described by sufficient metadata MAY be assigned an external identifier. Rationale: The content has its own intrinsic value outside the context of the article and may be discoverable on its own. Any effort expended in assigning descriptive metadata can best be exploited via an external identifier. Examples: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030038.g002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030038.t003
    • 44. Identification (cont’d)5. Supplemental content packages (e.g., a container holding several supplemental items) MAY be assigned external identifiers. Rationale: Enhance linking reliability. Examples: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.32.3.322.supp http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.122.4.777.supp http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030038.sg008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1172/JCI200521773DS4 http://dx.doi.org/10.2210/pdb2fpe/pdb http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/548525556001
    • 45. Preservation1. Publishers should state publicly their preservation strategy/approaches. Out of the two main approaches (migration vs. emulation) migration is recommended as the preservation strategy. Migration involves converting objects, over the long-term, from one form to another which is usable under prevalent technology at the time.
    • 46. Preservation (cont’d)2. Retention of files – Ideally, all objects throughout the migration chain should be saved.  For the Integral Content, at least the original object plus the last two iterations of the converted objects, i.e., latest and latest-1 versions, must be saved.  For Additional Content, publishers should strive to save the original object plus the converted objects.
    • 47. Preservation (cont’d)3. Format is important – preservation techniques depend on object format. Format is not equal to mime-types, which may not carry enough information for converting and management of objects. If possible, publishers should use formats defined in formal format registries like UDFR http://www.udfr.org or PRONOM http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/PRONOM/
    • 48. Preservation (cont’d)Alternatively, publishers may define and publish list of file formats they support. Criteria:  Is the format open or proprietary?  Is the format widely used?  Is there already a standard format for this type of content?  Does this format have advantages over existing formats for this type of content?  Are there free/ubiquitous viewers?  Are there viewers for multiple operating systems?  Are there any concerns about long term viability?  Is there open source software related to the format?  Is the format defined/reviewed by an international standard (both formal or de facto) or a widely recognized body?
    • 49. Preservation (cont’d)Limitation of formats accepted by publishers – While it is an acceptable practice to limit the formats of objects to be supported, authors should be able to deposit objects in formats outside of the acceptable list.  Conversion to archival format - publisher lists required/preferred formats for preservation/carried forward. Objects outside of the list should be converted to a supported format. Both the original and converted objects will be kept.  Two-tier service - publisher lists formats to support. Other formats will still be accepted but not guaranteed to be carried forward.Each object should have basic descriptive metadata, like label and caption, to inform users what the object is about, in case the format becomes obsolete.
    • 50. Packaging• Article and all its components should be transferable in a single package, e.g., to fulfill interlibrary loan request, to perform a deposit to an archive or a repository, etc.• There are a number of different packaging specifications available, and this Working Group does not intend to design a new one nor require the use of any particular specifications or tools.
    • 51. Packaging (cont’d)The package contains all files comprising the article and the manifest describing the contentsManifest – article-level metadata: 1. Journal ID (ISSN) 2. Core article ID (citation) 3. Core article DOI 4. Persistent links to the supplemental materials 5. List of all files contained in the package
    • 52. Packaging (cont’d)Manifest – component-level metadata: 1. Type: Integral, Additional, or both 2. Component DOI 3. File name 4. File size 5. File description 6. Rendering application information 7. Detailed copyright information 8. Instructions
    • 53. Metadata schema<!ELEMENT supp_mat_metadata (core_article_metadata, supp_mat_descriptive, supp_mat_object_metadata+ ) ><!ATTLIST supp_mat_metadata supp-mat-type (integral | additional | integral-and-additional) #REQUIRED >
    • 54. Metadata schema (cont’d)<!ELEMENT core_article_metadata (core_article_identifier+, core_article_verification*) ><!ELEMENT supp_mat_descriptive (supp_mat_identifier*, version?, label?, titles?, caption?, contrib_group*, summary*, history?, language*, content_descriptor?, subject_descriptor_group*, accessibility_long_desc*, publisher?, copyright*, license*, open_access*, provenance?, preservation*) >
    • 55. Metadata schema (cont’d)<!ELEMENT supp_mat_object_metadata (core_element_metadata*, supp_mat_descriptive?, supp_mat_physical?, supp_mat_object_metadata*) ><!ATTLIST supp_mat_object_metadata supp-mat-type (integral | additional | integral-and-additional) #IMPLIED relationship-of-objects (unrelated | single | logical-set | alternatives) #IMPLIED >
    • 56. Metadata schema (cont’d)<!ELEMENT supp_mat_physical (ext_link | file_metadata)+ ><!ELEMENT file_metadata (filename, ((mime_type, mime_subtype?) | ((format, format_registry?, validity?), (mime_type, mime_subtype?)?)), size?, fixity?, creating_application?, rendering_application*) >
    • 57. Version of record• If the version of record incorporates linked or embedded essential objects then the notion of Integral Supplemental material is not applicable• Additional content still has to be indicated as such, e.g., AGU’s “Auxiliary material”• Is version of record the same for various actors?
    • 58. Version of record (cont’d)
    • 59. Practical challenges• Is sup. mat. importance “in the eye of the beholder?” (what’s Additional to you is Integral to me) — some beholders are more equal than others: a decision made upfront determines downstream processing• Real costs, hypothetical benefits• Business models: is sup. mat. a money maker or a money waster?
    • 60. What does the future hold?“… over time the concept of supplemental material will gradually give way to a more modern concept of a hierarchical or layered presentation in which a reader can define which level of detail best fits their interests and needs.”Marcus, E. (2009), Taming supplemental material, Cell 139(1), p.11, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2009.09.021
    • 61. SourcesBeebe, L. (2010), Supplemental materials for Journal articles: NISO/NFAIS Joint Working Group, Information Standards Quarterly 22(3), p.33, doi:10.3789/isqv22n3.2010.07Carpenter, T. (2009), Journal article supplementary materials: A Pandora’s box of issues needing best practices, Against the Grain 21(6), p.84Marcus, E. (2009), Taming supplemental material, Cell 139(1), p.11, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2009.09.021Maunsell, J. (2010), Announcement regarding supplemental material, The Journal of Neuroscience 30(32): p.10599NFAIS (2009), Best practices for publishing journal articles, 30 pp., http://www.nfais.org/files/file/Best_Practices_Final_Public.pdfSchwarzman, S. (2010), Supplemental materials survey, Information Standards Quarterly 22(3), p.23, doi:10.3789/isqv22n3.2010.05http://www.agu.org/dtd/Presentations/sup-mat/10.3789_isqv22n3.2010.05.pdf NISO/NFAIS Supplemental journal article materials project http://www.niso.org/workrooms/supplemental sschwarzman@agu.org
    • 62. Q&A