Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Additional update to core dictionary

Dear Colleagues,

   I have no objection to the proposed tag as defined, but
suggest that the name


might more clearly reflect the intent, especially as we move increasingly 
to online publication of articles rather than having our papers on true 
and wonderful paper.  I admit to being torn between my desire to save 
trees and my love for finding real papers in library stacks, but the 
handwriting on the facebook wall is clear -- paper publishing is being 
replaced by electronic publishing and, sadly, the term "paper" rather than 
"article" is less and less appropriate.  This is just a suggestion.

As for deferring providing a tag for datasets and other supplemental 
material, that is probably wise, but it might be sensible to start a 
discussion among the IUCr, CSD and the PDB.  The PDB already has an 
_entry.pdbx_DOI tag to record the DOI's of their entries, and it would be 
good if whatever cross-referencing solution was eventually achieved had as 
much commonality between coreCIF and mmCIF as possible.

  Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
    Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
         Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769


On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, James Hester wrote:

> I see no problem with Brian adding in _journal_paper_doi as described below.
> James.
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org> wrote:
>> Colleagues
>> 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
>>        _journal_paper_doi
>> 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
>> Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> comcifs mailing list
>> comcifs@iucr.org
>> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs
> -- 
> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
> _______________________________________________
> comcifs mailing list
> comcifs@iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs

Reply to: [list | sender only]