VEP-015: relationship_type#References

[August (Gus) Muench]

It is worth repeating Edwin's link:
https://support.datacite.org/docs/contributing-citations-and-references

which points out that DataCite is dictating that
Cites/References/Supplements are identical (semantically) on the network
graph. This makes me a little sad. The only thing that matters is
directionality.

If it is a case of semantic trench warfare then I'm with Edwin. I think
Cites is more generic than References and Supplements when looking _only_
at the DataCite terminology:

Cites: "indicates that A includes B in a citation"
References: "indicates B is used as a source of information for A"
IsSupplementTo:  "indicates that A is a supplement to B"

I think perhaps that we are overloading "cites" as "appearing in an
aritcle's bibliography", noting that appearing in an article's bibliography
contains exactly zero information about why it appears there.

Appearing in the relatedIdentifiers of a dataset is also a citation. Some
might say that being extracted from the full text of an article or dataset
and expressed as a Scholix relationship is also a "citation".  Again, I
think that "citation" is the more generic term as it doesn't try to
describe the relationship at all.

Gus




----------
August (Gus) Muench
august.fly at gmail.com
New Haven, CT



On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 10:08 AM Markus Demleitner via registry <
registry at ivoa.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/attachments/20240306/d26d4a51/attachment.htm>