Publication dates in OMP

Hello,

We have published some books in our OMP platform that were previously print-published back in the 2000s, I’m trying to figure out the best way to enter metadata about the publication dates.

Should the published date under Catalog entry->Catalog describe the online publishing date? I’m guessing it should, since there are a few options for describing the original publishing date under Catalog Entry->PDF->Publication Dates: Publication date (01), Date of first publication (11), Publication date of print counterpart (19). But which of these should be used? They all seem quite similar to me. I would really appreciate some advice.

I would also like to know if there are any problems with changing the date format in the “published” field from full year-month-day to year only. In my opinion it somehow makes more sense to display only the year for book content. I’m thinking of changing the date_format_trunc to only displaying the year and using that for the templates. Will this work? I have a faint memory of a previous discussion about problems with modifying date displays.

All the best
Magnus

Hi @mannemark,

The various types of publication dates come from the ONIX standard: https://onix-codelists.io/codelist/163

I believe there are also options to set the specificity of the date there, e.g. to YYYY instead of MM-DD-YYYY. If those aren’t working as expected, please let me know by posting here.

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

1 Like

Thank you @asmecher!

I understand that they come from ONIX and I’ve had a look at the descriptions, but I’m still a bit confused by the different types of publication dates. I’m looking for the one that would best correspond to, for instance, the 260 $c field in MARC21. I guess 01 Publication date is the one, but they are all so similar.

Using the YYYY format for these publication dates seem to work fine, but the main publication date is still YYYY-MM-DD. To change this we would need to modify config and/or templates. I’m trying to figure out if this would be somehow problematic (for internal purposes or for instance for harvesting), I remember reading some advice to stick with the default date formats in order to avoid errors (at least in OJS).

Another question (please let me know if I should start a separate topic for this): Is it possible to modify the display of the publication dates under publication formats? Right now they are displaying ONIX-codes, for instance “Publication date (01)” or “ISBN-13 (15)”, which doesn’t really make sense. If so, where?

All the best

Hi @mannemark,

Essentially the part of OMP that’s dedicated to ONIX understands the ONIX date format options, but much of the system needs to work with standards/systems that don’t use ONIX date formats – e.g. Dublin Core, CrossRef, Google Scholar, etc. – and for those a full date is used, even if it’s overly specific. I am sure there is some room for improvement within OJS on this regard but I’m also sure that not all “crucial” integrations will support it yet. So you’ll see a bit of a mixed bag for the moment, unfortunately.

I wouldn’t recommend changing the date_format settings in config.inc.php to trim off the day or something like that. There were a few errors in past releases about assuming the dates would be in the default format e.g. when passing data between the back end (PHP) and the front end Javascript) but I believe those have been resolved.

It is generally save to modify the templates if you want to tweak date formats there.

The ONIX codelists are supplied by the organization that administers them, and we haven’t made any changes in the way these are included in OMP. The lists themselves include the suffixes that you’re finding confusing; you can tweak the names yourself by editing e.g. locale/en_US/ONIX_BookProduct_CodeLists.xsd (for the English version).

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team