[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
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: Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:18:05 +0100
- In-Reply-To: <472620FF2D2FBB4BB62FD1285C58A04F9244164600@mail01.ccdc.cam.ac.uk>
- References: <20110324102821.GB3581@emerald.iucr.org><1893558218.22554.1300989799369.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxapp1.inap.sea.dotster.net><472620FF2D2FBB4BB62FD1285C58A04F92441645AE@mail01.ccdc.cam.ac.uk><20110328221620.GA9742@emerald.iucr.org><472620FF2D2FBB4BB62FD1285C58A04F9244164600@mail01.ccdc.cam.ac.uk>
Matt > I worry about including the mime_type in the CIF. I feel that the > DOI is a permanent reference to some associated data, but that the > format could change. As an example DOI might reference a pdf this > year, but might move to some other document format in future. That's a very good point. One way of looking at the suggested _journal_sup_material_ items is of cataloguing known supplementary documents according to various known attributes; exactly which items are populated in such a loop could vary according to (a) what information you happen to know and (b) what you (think you) want to do with it. So some items might have _mime_type, some _doi (raising the interesting question of whether one wants DDL attributes to prevent certain combinations of populated items in loops). The whole question of what a DOI, especially for a data set, should actually point to remains under active discussion, which is partly why we think that current practice is still neither consistent nor mature enough to warrant working this up as a full proposal as yet. > Some of the later presented data appear to me to belong more to > a publication system than a general format for crystal structure > experimental output, and that this might be extending things too > far. I can see the benefit within a particular journal system. That's also a fair point, and it does bring up the general topic of the extent to which a CIF should just be considered a crystal structure, and to what extent it can be considered as just one way of packaging a compound package of information, complete with all the items that would normally be considered 'metadata' rather than 'data'. The current buzz word for such a package is 'research object'. From the outset, the core CIF dictionary has been far richer than most scientific data formats precisely because it includes information about publications, provenance, audit trails and, in a limited way, relationships with other data sets. As we see, it can be very difficult (if not practically impossible) to capture the desired level of detail in the scientific, and even in the publishing, workflow - but I think it is useful to develop the dictionaries in a way that tracks useful "metadata" standards in the wider world. This is all very hot stuff at the moment. Peter Murray-Rust's recent "Scholarly HTML" initiatives depend upon being able to capture and express relationships between linked data sets. After attending the JISC Workshop on Managing Research Data (http://bit.ly/dYdUtx) I can now answer the question I posed in my last post - is there an analogy for data to the "CiTO" ontology for relationships between cited publications? Yes, an extension to CiTO is being worked upon by David Shotton's group at Oxford in asociation with the DRYAD project (see also http://purl.org/spar). CrossRef is looking at making DOIs more suitable for direct use in linked-data applications (http://bit.ly/e2mvya) etc. etc. All of which contributes to our sense that we should wait for this to settle down a bit before revisiting the issue of recording DOIs within CIFs. Cheers Brian
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Additional update to core dictionary (Brian McMahon)
- Re: Additional update to core dictionary (jim kaduk)
- RE: Additional update to core dictionary (Matthew Towler)
- Re: Additional update to core dictionary (Brian McMahon)
- RE: Additional update to core dictionary (Matthew Towler)
- Prev by Date: RE: Additional update to core dictionary
- Next by Date: Revised CIF syntax guidelines
- Prev by thread: RE: Additional update to core dictionary
- Next by thread: Fwd: Items for fast track COMCIFS approval
- Index(es):