VOResource 1.1 RFC

[Sarah Weissman]

I’ve been thinking about this more, and would like to clarify my original comment

I think what I’m unclear about is whether vr:relationship and relatedResource is intended to refer only to resources with an IVOA ID. There doesn’t appear to be a way to use vr:relationship to meaningfully refer to anything that isn’t a registered resource. Most of the examples I have looked at in the STScI registry look like:

    <relationship>
      <relationshipType>served-by</relationshipType>
      <relatedResource ivo-id="ivo://org.myorg/myservicename ">My Descriptive Service Name </relatedResource>
    </relationship>

(some put the IVOA ID as the value of relatedResource instead of in the ivo-id attribute).

With the expanded list for vr:relationType in VOResource 1.1 (Cites Continues HasPart IsContinuedBy IsDerivedFrom IsIdenticalTo IsNewVersionOf IsPartOf IsPreviousVersionOf IsServedBy IsServiceFor IsSourceOf IsSupplementTo IsSupplementedBy), it seems possible that I might refer to something that is NOT a registered VO resource with vr:relationship and I’m not sure what the best way is to do this. In theory I can do the following:

    <relationship>
      <relationshipType>HasPart</relationshipType>
      <relatedResource >doi:10.5071/FK12345</relatedResource>
    </relationship>

but since vr:ResourceName is supposed to be the name of a potentially registered resource, this seems incorrect, since “doi:10.5071/FK12345” is not the name of a resource, but an identifier. And referring to a related resource by just a name without an identifier that can be used to locate it, seems a bit pointless. If we were going to align with DataCite, I’d think it would need to look something like this:

    <relationship>
      <relationshipType>HasPart</relationshipType>
      <relatedResource resourceIdentifierType=”DOI” resourceIdentifier=”doi:10.5071/FK12345”>My related Resource</relatedResource>
    </relationship>

To summarize, my suggestion/comment would be to make it clear whether relatedResource can be something other than an IVOA IDed resource and, if so, to provide a way to meaningfully and clearly do that.

-Sarah


From: <interop-bounces at ivoa.net> on behalf of Sarah Weissman <sweissman at stsci.edu>
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de>, "interop at ivoa.net" <interop at ivoa.net>
Subject: Re: VOResource 1.1 RFC

Hi Markus, all,

I went to the wiki to leave comments. but the registration page says “Registration has been disabled” so it looks like I can’t create an account. Please let me know if registration is enabled again and I can add the comments below there. My name is Sarah Weissman and I am a software engineer who works with Theresa Dower on the registry at STScI.

My comment is about the connections between DataCite and the new VOResource schema. Is the goal that one should be possible to map between the two standards? One limitation that I have noticed with DataCite and compatibility with astronomy data resources is with the relatedIdentifiers type. In DataCite, a relatedIdentifier must have a relatedIdentifierType associated with it, which come from a fixed list. In VOResource there is the vr:relationship type, which has a relatedResource element that appears to always be a vr:ResourceName, which as I understand it is always an IVOA identifier URI. This represents an incompatibility with DataCite in two ways. One, an IVOA identifier URI is not one of the types in the relatedIdentifierType enumeration in DataCite. Two, DataCite allows a wider range of types of identifiers that may be related to the current described resource. Has there been any thought of trying to get astronomy-specific identifier types into the allowed list for DataCite or of expanding the types of identifiers that can be specified as a relatedResource for the vr:relationship type in the VOResource schema?

We have run into this issue with DataCite with our new DOI service at MAST, where we would like to put CAOM observation IDs into the relatedIdentifiers list, and there is not an obvious way to do this, but I imagine this could be an issue for anyone who is trying to translate between any type of astronomy resource metadata and DataCite.

Thanks,
Sarah


From: <interop-bounces at ivoa.net> on behalf of Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:24 AM
To: "interop at ivoa.net" <interop at ivoa.net>
Subject: VOResource 1.1 RFC

Dear IVOA community,

After VOResource 1.1 went to Proposed Recommendation in April, I am
happy to formally open the RFC for it.

Please review the text and comment on
http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/VOResource11RFC

In particular operators of publishing registries and authors of
advanced registry records are cordially invited to read the document
and ideally already provide implementation feedback; VOResource 1.1
features can already be used, including for discovery with searchable
registries implementing an (early) draft of RegTAP 1.1.

The RFC period ends on July 15th; it would be wonderful if reviews
could be in by then.

Thanks,

        Markus Demleitner

(doubling here as Registry Chair and VOResource 1.1 Editor)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/interop/attachments/20170607/dcfc6125/attachment-0001.html>