VEP-015: relationship_type#References

[Anne Catherine Raugh]

I'm confused by the statistics remark - the point of including any of these
relationships in the DOI metadata is to generate statistics. Sounds like
you're complaining that it works. (Let me know if you want the long,
pedantic aside on "Cites" and "References" in DataCite metadata.)

Sticking to the point, it sounds to me like Vizier has defined "references"
for their own context, which is pretty much what ends up happening at each
institution writing DOI metadata for DataCite.

Rather than propagating ambiguity to the IVOA interface, I would suggest
that if we are going to get into the relationship-defining business (and
it's hard not to), we should be as specific in the relationship definition
as practical. This is especially true if the same concept applies to
anything other than Vizier. Vocabulary lists with vague and circular
definitions (yes, I have read the DataCite documentation 😒) are in some
sense worse than free-text fields, because at least in free-text fields
there's a good chance the user is saying what they actually intend, if only
there is a human around to read it.

Thinking on a larger scale, it is also problematic to define seemingly
general concepts like "references" in a context-specific way. In other
words, whatever we do for Vizier, we should avoid a solution that
might cause confusion in contexts where "referencing" and "citing" are
distinct relationships.

-Anne.


On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 9:10 AM gilles landais <
gilles.landais at astro.unistra.fr> wrote:

> 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 | @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 (and
>>> most
>>>     other IVOA document records; cf.
>>>     <
>>> 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/20240305/2a488abf/attachment.htm>