VEP-015: relationship_type#References

[Baptiste Cecconi]

Hi all, 

Short version: 
I agree to replace "related-to" by "references", with a rewording of the description.

----------------
Long version:

very interesting discussion indeed :-)

Thanks Edwin for pointing to the Datacite page explaining the difference between "reference" and "citation". 
My understanding, in an IVOA context (which is a bit different than the journal citation one):

"Paper A cites paper B" is rather clear: there is a citation in the text, and the citation can also be specific on what part of paper B is of interest. The reference is listed in the References section.
=> so "Cites/isCitedBy" require actual citation in a specific context/place.

"Dataset A references paper B" is also clear: the dataset metadata provides a list of papers associated to the dataset, with a loose context (just a bunch of references) 
=> so "References/IsReferencedBy" just tells there a reference (not in specific a context)

It seems to me that the "References/IsReferencedBy" is the overarching term, the most generic relation, and other relations (such as "Cites/isCitedBy" or "Supplements/IsSupplementedBy") are more specific types of references.

In this context, I would propose to use "References/IsReferencedBy" when no other more specific relations are applicable.

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

Ok, now that I propose this, I'm sure there will be arguments :-) 

Baptiste


> Le 5 mars 2024 à 14:15, Henneken, Edwin via registry <registry at ivoa.net> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>)
>>> 
>>>   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/20240306/2a9b15d4/attachment-0001.htm>