suitable citations for isotc211-geolexica and the MLGT

[ReesePlews]

based on discussions with some ISO/TC211 TMG members (@celiasevillasanchez , and others ) it was suggested to develop a suitable citation for both the MLGT and TC211 version of Geolexica.

using related examples developed by @ronaldtse for the "OSGeo Version of Geolexica" i have modified those examples and prepared the following proposals shown below.

ISO 690 citation formats (with other citation formats to be provided later)

a1) Full MLGT dataset (excel file):

ISO. ISO/TC-211 Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms (MLGT). Release 5.0. ISO/TC-211 Terminology Maintenance Group (TMG) with translations by participating ISO/TC-211 National Body (NB) and liaison members, 2020-06-01. Available at: https://github.com/ISO-TC211/TMG/releases/tag/MLGT.

b1) ISO/TC-211 Geolexica (online):
ISO. ISO/TC-211 Geolexica -- Online Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms (MLGT). Release 1.0. ISO/TC-211 Terminology Maintenance Group (TMG) with translations by participating ISO/TC-211 National Body (NB) and liaison members, 2020-06-22. Available at: https://isotc211.geolexica.org/.

i am concerned about the following:
i) there is a difference of release/version numbers... MLGT is a "release" Geolexica is a "version"... is this ok or is this unclear and confusing?
ii) we want to acknowledge the translations by the NBs and liaisons (like PAIGH) but this cannot be done when citing the entire dataset; however in the citation for a single entry would that be possible (to list NB of Spain and PAIGH) or would that be too difficult?
iii) too much complexity and too many variations of citations will surly frustrate users who are likely to either choose the simplest one or worse, ignore it all together...

later we can work out the citation formats for individual terms if you think that is needed? it could get complex if we tried to give credit to the NBs that made the translations?
Citation formats for individual terms:
(example only) to be revised after MLGT/TC211 Geolexica are finalized...
ISO 690: OSGEO. geoid. In: OSGeo Glossary. Version 1.0. OSGeo, 2021-01-22. Concept ID: 129. Available at: https://osgeo.geolexica.org/concepts/129/.

i look forward to your feedback and discussion

reese

[ronaldtse]

@hjelmager @heidivanparys must also be interested.

[celiasevillasanchez]

Hi,
Thank you for the discussion.

From my point of view, it is ok, although it is a bit long, but if it is what ISO 690 says, it is ok If someone want to know the participating members they can see the contact point in MLGT in every different language.

Regarding your questions:
i) It is confusing for me. I though that version and release was the same. They should be conformant.
ii) Too difficult for the citation, maybe you can make an acknoledment saying who translated every language.
iii) As a user, I prefer as simple as possible.

Regards,
Celia.

[ronaldtse]

Thank you @ReesePlews for bringing this up!

In the ISO 690:2021 format, both are considered the "same work" but with different "medium", and available at different locations.

So they would be simpler like this:

1. MLGT dataset (excel file):

ISO. ISO/TC 211 Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms. Release 5.0. Dataset. 2020-06-01. Available at: https://github.com/ISO-TC211/TMG/releases/tag/MLGT.

2. ISO/TC 211 Geolexica (online):

ISO. ISO/TC 211 Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms. Release 5.0. Online. 2020-06-01. Available at: https://isotc211.geolexica.org/.

i) there is a difference of release/version numbers... MLGT is a "release" Geolexica is a "version"... is this ok or is this unclear and confusing?

I think we can consider both "Releases" if they are identical.

ii) we want to acknowledge the translations by the NBs and liaisons (like PAIGH) but this cannot be done when citing the entire dataset; however in the citation for a single entry would that be possible (to list NB of Spain and PAIGH) or would that be too difficult?

We should display that in the concept entry page.

While we can't acknowledge everyone in the citation for the entire dataset, we could cite a particular language-entry with that information. e.g.

{Name of Spanish contributor}. métrica de distancia. Glosario de terminos de ISO/TC 211. Release 5.0. Online. 2020-06-01. Available at: https://isotc211.geolexica.org/concepts/665/.

iii) too much complexity and too many variations of citations will surly frustrate users who are likely to either choose the simplest one or worse, ignore it all together...

Agree... simple is best.

[heidivanparys]

I am wondering whether it is a good idea to include the release number in the citation of Geolexica. From the website, it appears, that Geolexica will always contain the latest release (see also screenshot below).

So perhaps more something like:

ISO. ISO/TC 211 Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms [online]. Available from: https://isotc211.geolexica.org/

or

ISO. ISO/TC 211 Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms. [online]. [no date]. Available from: https://isotc211.geolexica.org/

As for the Excel file:

• perhaps mention explicitly that it is Excel
• I am wondering whether the term "release" is a good one if we want to make it easy for others to use bibliographic management software to maintain this resource. E.g. if you use a tool that is based on the Citation Style Language, such as Zotero, there is no field called "release". "version" (alphanumeric) and "edition" (should be numeric) are present though, see https://docs.citationstyles.org/en/stable/specification.html#appendix-iv-variables

ISO. ISO/TC 211 Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms [Excel] [online]. 5th ed. 2020-06-01. Available from: https://github.com/ISO-TC211/TMG/releases/tag/MLGT

or

ISO. ISO/TC 211 Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms [Excel] [online]. Version 2020-06-01. Available from: https://github.com/ISO-TC211/TMG/releases/tag/MLGT

As for the creator: are we allowed to say ISO there, or should it perhaps be ISO/TC 211? It is not an official standard (I don't know if that is important though). So another option could be (for both resources):

ISO/TC 211. Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms [...]

A side note: it would possibly be good to add the date or the release/edition in the tag name.