Empty author organization name

[strogonoff]

https://github.com/ietf-ribose/relaton-data-misc/blob/1f9465d443de097c8be6dac02f1db2b74eddace0/data/reference.IEEE.802-11A.1999.yaml#L37

[strogonoff]

Another example:

https://github.com/ietf-ribose/relaton-data-misc/blob/1aaf554a492a80ce0a03239a55b0c7391ad256b8/data/reference.IEEE.802-11F.2003.yaml#L27-L38

[ronaldtse]

This is a data error. We have to update this entry manually since it is a static entry.

[ronaldtse]

And in this case the publisher isn’t IETF, it’s IEEE.

[ronaldtse]

Unless we are to distinguish the publisher of the bibliographic item entry vs the publisher of the information resource… but that is not supported by Relaton.

[strogonoff]

Unless we are to distinguish the publisher of the bibliographic item entry vs the publisher of the information resource… but that is not supported by Relaton.

Yeah, I think this is a useful distinction to make.

There are three levels of metadata that we could be dealing with, of which Relaton covers two:

1. Relaton source bibliographic item metadata (examples: fetched describes when item was read from the authoritative source, and maybe a couple of properties like id and doctype are technically Relaton source specific)
2. authoritative source bibliographic item metadata
3. actual document metadata (= bibliographic item data; this is all other properties I think: who published the document, who authored/edited it, etc.)

If we wanted to cover “bibliographic item publisher”, it would come at level 2, but we currently have no properties of the sort.

As a side note, I think Relaton structure could do a better job at separating levels 1 and 3, e.g. by segregating them more cleanly under nested keys. Not that it’s critical…

[strogonoff]

Regarding publisher being wrong, this may be related to https://github.com/ietf-ribose/relaton-data-misc/issues/2

[strogonoff]

A possibly related issue—empty affiliated organization name:

relaton-data-misc/data/reference.W3C.xml-c14n.yaml

Lines 39 to 43 in 655752c

	- en
	affiliation:
	- organization:
	name:
	- "\n "

[ronaldtse]

@andrew2net can you have a look? This seems to be an issue.

[andrew2net]

The source has an empty <organization></organization> elements. Suppose we should skip these organisation, don't we?

[ronaldtse]

@andrew2net yes we should just remove the elements that are empty.

[andrew2net]

@ronaldtse @strogonoff fixed but the repo will be updated later