VEP-015: relationship_type#References

[gilles landais]

Hi everyone,

"references" was a VizieR proposal to replace the deprecated ivoa term 
"related-to" (eg: 
https://cds.unistra.fr/registry/?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=ivo_vor&identifier=ivo://cds.vizier/J/AJ/161/36).
VizieR uses "related-to" on a catalogue to list VizieR datasets which 
was attached to articles cited by the catalogue reference article (the 
"See also" section in VizieR ReadMe file).

This list of resources is not really a list of citation (but a "citation 
by rebounds" ...). It is why we used the term "related-to" (and we liked 
it). That's an option, provided for discoverability reasons.
(Note that this VizieR list is provided only in its VO registry record 
but not in its DOI metadata)


If you think, "references" is not adapted for this VizieR use case (and 
according to the DataCite definition, it seems that it is not)  we can 
remove this list or keep "related-to".


(Note: In fact, I don't like "Cites" because in DataCite API "Cites" 
relation increases the datacite statistics (curl 
https://api.datacite.org/dois/{DOI}))


Thank for your advises,

with best,
Gilles Landais (CDS)



Le 05/03/2024 à 14:15, Henneken, Edwin via registry a écrit :
> I agree with Anne. In their Metadata Schema 4.5 document, DataCite 
> uses pretty much the same language for "References" as proposed here
>
> DataCite Definition: indicates B is used as a source of information for A
> URL: 
> https://datacite-metadata-schema.readthedocs.io/en/4.5/appendices/appendix-1/relationType/#references
>
> So, yes, you could use it for "cited-reference" if you wish.
>
> DataCite provides a nice page on the use of the relationship types 
> Cited, IsCitedBy, References and IsReferenceBy:
> https://support.datacite.org/docs/contributing-citations-and-references
>
> But, due to its more general nature, I think using "Cited" is to be 
> preferred over "References" when the relationship is for a 
> "citation-reference".
>
> From the ADS point of view, if we get metadata for a work to be 
> indexed and it has a RelatedIdentifier section, we don't want to be 
> guessing what the precise meaning/role of a specific relationType is; 
> different values for relationType result in different actions within 
> the ADS indexing workflow.
>
> All the best
> Edwin
>
> *Edwin Henneken *(he | him | his)
>
> NASA Astrophysics Data System
>
> Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian
>
> 60 Garden Street | MS 83 | Cambridge, MA 02138
>
>
> ads.harvard.edu <http://ads.harvard.edu/>| @adsabs 
> <https://twitter.com/adsabs> | _ui.adsabs.harvard.edu 
> <https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/>_
>
> _cfa.harvard.edu <https://cfa.harvard.edu/>_ | Facebook 
> <http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook>| Twitter 
> <http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter>| YouTube 
> <http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube>| Newsletter 
> <http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 7:00 AM Anne Catherine Raugh via semantics 
> <semantics at ivoa.net> wrote:
>
>     "References" is actually a problematic term for DataCite, largely
>     because there is also the term "Cites" to confuse the issue. Both
>     are used for citation-reference relationships, depending on the
>     whim of the metadata author. "References" is also used for other
>     relationships when one resources mentions another (in
>     acknowledgements, for example, or as part of a "For further
>     information" reading list).
>
>     If the intention is for all relationships of this new type
>     "reference" to be interpreted as a "citation-reference", then you
>     should probably say so explicitly. It seems unlikely that other
>     sorts of relationships would be relevant to the IVOA case, and
>     perhaps it might encourage citation of results where appropriate.
>
>     -Anne.
>
>
>     On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 3:39 AM Markus Demleitner via semantics
>     <semantics at ivoa.net> wrote:
>
>         Dear Semantics, dear Registry,
>
>         We have a new VEP on the Registry's vocabulary of relationship
>         types,
>         VEP-015: https://github.com/ivoa-std/VEPs/blob/main/VEP-015.txt.
>
>         Here is its text:
>
>           Vocabulary: http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/voresource/relationship_type
>           Author: gilles.landais at unistra.fr
>           Date: 2022-12-15
>
>           New Term: References
>           Action: Addition
>           Label: references
>           Description: This resource used the related resource as a
>         source of information.
>
>           Used-in: The registry record
>         ivo://edu.gavo.org/hd/gavo_addpms
>         <http://edu.gavo.org/hd/gavo_addpms> (and most
>             other IVOA document records; cf.
>            
>         <http://dc.zah.uni-heidelberg.de/wirr/q/ui/fixed?field0=restype&operator0=%3D&operand0=doc%3Adocument
>         <http://dc.zah.uni-heidelberg.de/wirr/q/ui/fixed?field0=restype&operator0=%3D&operand0=doc%3Adocument>>)
>
>           Rationale: This term is proposed to replace the deprecated
>         term "related-to"
>             in the registry relationships. In VizieR, "related-to"
>         refers VO resources
>             which are linked by their biliographic references.
>
>             For instance, a VizieR catalogue V is attached to a
>         bibliographic reference.
>             This article includes in the section "References"
>         citations to other
>             articles A1, A2, ... some of them have a VizieR catalogue
>         V1,V2,...
>             The proposed relation makes the relation between V and
>         V1,V2,...
>
>             "References"  is a term used in DataCite schema.
>
>         Do the WGs have opinions on this?  I'd suggest comments should be
>         addressed to the Registry mailing list.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>                   Markus
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20240305/73a36cbf/attachment-0001.htm>