VEP-015: relationship_type#References

[gilles landais]

I fully agree that terms in common with DataCite should be consistent 
with the DataCite definition.
But I'm also in favor of extending terms in the VO registry (which is 
not designed for citation), like those pointed out by Sarah, as long as 
they don't interfere with DataCite semantic.
(for instance "related-to" was not in DataCite)

The number of records having a relationship "related-to" is significant 
in the VO (especially VizieR).
VizieR records with a "related-to" relationship have a different nature 
that specifying a citation and it seems that "References" is not more 
appropriate.


So, I am in favor to keep "related-to".


Gilles

Le 06/03/2024 à 16:08, Markus Demleitner via registry a écrit :
> 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
>