VEP-015: relationship_type#References

[Baptiste Cecconi]

Hi Gilles, 

What is missing in DataCite relation-types so that you can't use them for Vizier ?  I have difficulties to understand the issue.

A radical option would be to use the "rdfs:seeAlso" property, which is defined as "Further information about the subject resource". 

Baptiste

> Le 6 mars 2024 à 18:38, gilles landais via registry <registry at ivoa.net> a écrit :
> 
> 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
>>