RE: Additional update to core dictionary
- To: "Discussion list of the IUCr Committee for the Maintenance of the CIFStandard (COMCIFS)" <comcifs@iucr.org>
- Subject: RE: Additional update to core dictionary
- From: Matthew Towler <towler@ccdc.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:32:34 +0100
- Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
- acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
- In-Reply-To: <1893558218.22554.1300989799369.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxapp1.inap.sea.dotster.net>
- References: <20110324102821.GB3581@emerald.iucr.org><1893558218.22554.1300989799369.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxapp1.inap.sea.dotster.net>
AFAIK some journals are now using separate DOI for the supplementary data, that said many use a single DOI for the article then the data are accessed as sub-pages from this. If multiple DOI for a single article were supported I suggest having a single DOI item for the article then a separate loop for any associated data e.g. _journal_article_doi ABC1234 loop_ _journal_article_related_doi ABC5678 ABC8970 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? |
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Additional update to core dictionary (Brian McMahon)
- References:
- Additional update to core dictionary (Brian McMahon)
- Re: Additional update to core dictionary (jim kaduk)
- Prev by Date: Re: Additional update to core dictionary
- Next by Date: Re: Additional update to core dictionary
- Prev by thread: Re: Additional update to core dictionary
- Next by thread: Re: Additional update to core dictionary
- Index(es):