VOResource PR #1

[gilles landais]

Hi ,

the contributor type has not been selected in Data Origin yet - I didn't 
thought about it .
but may be there are some interests in EPN (or in VESPA who provides a 
compilation of datasets) ?

My feeling on contributors is that it concerns the data producers and 
not the data-centers  - It is an interesting information,  but difficult 
to have I think.


If I could suggest an other request more focused on data dissemination.


For instance, in VizieR, we add authors without any additional 
information and we complete the information with the bibcode to link the 
journal (content.source in ivoa registry)
The journal is not clearly specified.

We do the same for data coming from space agencies (for instance Gaia) - 
but in that case, the reference is not adapted and could be improved 
using relationship/relationshiptype.

eg:

<relationship>
   <relationshipType>IsDerivedFrom</relationshipType>
   <relatedResource altIdentifier="doi:10.5270/esa-qa4lep3">ESA Gaia 
DR3</relatedResource>
</relationship>

This information is not provided by VizieR yet, and I am not sure it is 
often used today - neither in registry, nor in datacite.
However, it could be a way to improve an interconnected network in a 
machine-readble way.


Gilles


Le 08/12/2022 à 10:00, Markus Demleitner a écrit :

> Dear Renaud,
>
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Renaud Savalle wrote:
>> There is a growing interest (from some EPN-TAP providers) to add
>> contributor types (possibly controled by a Vocabulary) in the
>> VOResource schema (similar to what can be done with DataCite - see
>> line 7a of Table 4 in
>> http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v4.3.pdf)
>>
>> This is somewhat related to the note "Data Origin in the VO"
>> currently being drafted by the DCP WG:
>> https://github.com/gilleslandais/ivoa-dcp-data-origin
>>
>> Now, it might be too early for VOResource 1.2, as I understand that
>> more discussions are planned about "Data Origin in the VO" during
>> the next Interop meeting in 2023.
> My take on this would be that *if* we add contributor types, it
> should almost certainly be a copy of what DataCite does, as everyone
> would justifiably cross with us if we pulled up something that is
> similar but subtly different.
>
> Given that, it would be really simple to add a vr:Contributor
> extending vr:ResourceName (contributor's current type) type
> that has an contributorType attribute which would say: "See the
> latest version of the DataCite metadata kernel for the values allowed
> here".  That would suck a bit for validators that would need extra
> code if they wanted to validate that, but as long as this is not used
> operationally, I think we could live with having it not validated.
>
> But that brings me to the central question: Why would we want this?
> I've never been really clear on why one would want this contributor
> thing in the Registry -- what sort of discovery would become possible
> with it?  Or should that cover a non-discovery use case?
>
> One scenario I could follow is when people generate DataCite metadata
> from VOResource records (which is lossy but not hard; see
> https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/registry/dois) *and* want
> these contributor types in the datacite records (where I can imagine
> a few uses for them).  But does anyone actually plan to do this?
>
> So... say if someone comes up with a concrete plan what to do with
> contributorType in VOResource I'd not argue against having it in
> version 1.2 -- but a "might be useful some day" wouldn't be strong
> enough in my book to accept the somewhat odd construct referencing a
> vocabulary written in an external and moving standard.
>
>          -- Markus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/datacp/attachments/20221208/47dc6f26/attachment.htm>