VEP-015: relationship_type#References

[Markus Demleitner]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:08:01PM +0100, Baptiste Cecconi via registry wrote:
> So my proposal is :
>
>  New Term: References
>  Action: Addition
>  Label: references
>  Description: This resource references the related resource. This reference is a generic reference, use more specific terms if appropriate.
>
> I would also update the the "Cites" definition, since I'm not sure
> why we exclude "bibliographic citation" therein, but that's another
> discussion

Hm... I'm not sure that's another discussion.  There's nothing wrong
with a VEP touching multiple concepts at once, and that's actually
the right thing to do if that's what's necessary to maintain the
tree-like structure we require of our vocabularies (cf.
https://ivoa.net/documents/Vocabularies/20230206/REC-Vocabularies-2.1.html#tth_sEc5.2.4).

What Baptiste is saying is in effect that we should, with the
introduction of #References, place #Cites below References.  I cannot
say I'm *totally* convinced, but I think I'm half won over; at least
it *sounds* plausible.

On the other hand, we'd like to be compatible with the wider DataCite
meanings if we use their lexical forms.  In version 4.3, they have:

References
  indicates B is used as a source of information for A
Cites
  indicates that A includes B in a citation

I had to stare at this for a moment, but I think when DataCite ever
organise their terms hierarchically, they'd have to have

  #Cites "is-narrower-than" #References

too.  And then perhaps unify the style of their descriptions, too.

Or should I better have called it a day earlier?

         -- Markus