Additional update to core dictionary
kaduk at polycrystallography.com
Thu Mar 24 18:03:19 GMT 2011
I think the idea of a definition for a document DOI is uncontroversial. It's
pretty common these days to access a journal article by its DOI. Given the
increasing interest in curation of raw data, might this idea get more complex?
Would the article DOI also include the raw data, or would multiple DOIs need to
be accommodated? Say one for the paper and another for the raw data?
On March 24, 2011 at 5:28 AM Brian McMahon <bm at iucr.org> wrote:
> Assuming James also approves the recent "fast-track" changes, I'll
> be happy to work on releasing quickly a new minor upgrade version
> of the core CIF dictionary.
> With your indulgence, I would like to take the opportunity to add
> at the same time
> as a new member of the JOURNAL category, expressing the digital
> object identifier (DOI) assigned to the article published from
> the data in the current CIF, e.g.
> _journal_paper_doi '10.1107/S010876739101067X'
> Traditionally, these _journal_ items have been taken to be in
> the gift of the IUCr journals staff, and have not gone through
> the usual formal review process. They are not individually
> defined in the core dictionary, though perhaps they should be.
> I would not expect any particular concern over the proposed new
> item; it's just another piece of bibliographic housekeeping.
> However, there is the possibility of creating new data names to
> record DOIs for other associated publications or data sets,
> now that it is starting to become common practice to register such
> identifiers for data sets. We have considered this possibility
> carefully in the Acta office, and have come to the conclusion that
> such definitions would be premature. There is as yet no established
> code of practice for assigning DOIs to data sets in a way that
> records their relationship to other data sets or publications.
> CrossRef, the body that has managed DOIs centrally for the
> publishing industry, is now partnered by DataCite, which seeks
> to perform the same role for research data sets. We feel that it
> would be best to track any protocols these bodies establish for
> cross-linking before seeking to emulate them with suitable
> CIF data names.
> On the other hand, if any of you feel differently about this,
> or have specific data names that you wish to suggest, please
> feel free to do so.
> Best wishes
> comcifs mailing list
> comcifs at iucr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the comcifs