VOResource 1.1: relationship type vocabulary

[Markus Demleitner]

Dear Registry,

As explained in the mail 
http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/2016-August/005112.html [1]
I plan for VOResource to externalise some vocabularies.  The initial
vocabularies would come with VOResource 1.1, and thus I'd like to
have them reviewed as if they were part of the schema.

Today, can I bother you for opinions on the successor to
relationship/type:

http://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-test/relationship_type

Points I feel uncertain about:

(1) style mixture.  I have kept the classic VOResource terms
(served-by, related-to, etc), and I think we have to do that as these
terms are in active use.  I have, however, taken over the DataCite
terms that I could see some use for in the VO. These use CamelCase.
I readily admit that's ugly and potentially annoying since resource
authors will always have to remember which style a specific term
uses.  If you really can't stand it, I see two alternatives:

  a) Go all the way to DataCite style.  This breaks some VO
  infrastructure, enough to make me reject that for a 1.1 release

  b) Change DataCite terms into the legacy VOResource 1.0 style
  (is-supplement-to, etc).  That'd make things somewhat harder for
  VOResource->DataCite translators, but I could live with that.  If
  people speak out for this, I'd do it.

(2) concept selection.  Right now, the predicates for
relationship_type are

mirror-of service-for served-by derived-from related-to
Cites
IsSupplementTo IsSupplementedBy
IsContinuedBy Continues
IsNewVersionOf IsPreviousVersionOf
IsPartOf HasPart
IsSourceOf

I'm pretty sure IsContinuedBy and in particular Continues are
valuable additions, leading people along the resource development
(e.g., services going down).  IsSourceOf is nice because we
traditionally had derived-from, and this would finally provide the
inverse.

Is*VersionOf would let people chain together various data releases,
and since different services for different data releases is something
fairly common in today's VO, I think having this helps in very real
cases.

IsPartOf and HasPart I'd see as useful when, e.g., SDSS starts
registering individual tables or so.

Cites is DataCite's closest match for what education wanted in their
educational registry extension.  Essentially, I'd like to have this
for the discovery use case "give me tutorials that work with tool X".

The *Supplement* terms are a bit fringy to me.

Terms in DataCite that I think won't serve forseeable discovery use
cases and that I hence didn't include in the vocabulary:

IsCitedBy  HasMetadata  IsMetadataFor  IsReferencedBy  References 
IsDocumentedBy Documents   IsCompiledBy  Compiles   IsVariantFormOf
IsOriginalFormOf   IsIdenticalTo IsReviewedBy Reviews IsDerivedFrom
IsSourceOf

Do you disagree with my selection? 


(c) I'm not including IsDerivedFrom (which is about the same as our
derived-from) from the DataCite vocabulary since I expect that here,
the two term sets will live together for quite a while, and I don't
want to deprecate one in favour of the other.  Should we?  The reason
for the co-existence is that I don't think DataCite will talk about
services any time soon, and so the very important served-by
relationship may not enter DataCite for quite a while.

Opinions?

        -- Markus


[1] Erratum: the link to the content/type vocabulary should of course
have been http://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-test/content_type in that mail.