<div dir="ltr">Hi Markus,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for resurrecting the topic. I have a few comments below, but first as a meta-comment, should we consider reusing, when possible, the relationTypes found in the DataCite schema (<a href="http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v3.1.pdf">http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v3.1.pdf</a>)? This may be useful for two reasons: it makes our life easier if and when the day comes to cross-walk between DataLink and DataCite and, perhaps more importantly, it borrows semantics generated by a cross-disciplinary community of practitioners who had to come up with schemas for describing data, which is really what we are trying to do here. I'll use some of them below.</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Markus Demleitner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de" target="_blank">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
(1) I'd like to have a term for larger chunks of metadata in separate<br>
files. I'd need that to link to observation logs, but I could also<br>
<span class="">see logs a pipeline has written, or an extensive provenance, or<br>
similar.<br>
<br>
</span>Proposed term(s): #metadata? #documentation? (as a child of<br>
#auxiliary, I guess)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I dislike both terms you suggest because they sound so general that they could be used for most anything. But if we have to stay general because of the potentially different types of resources we need to point to, how about #Documents?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
(2) I'd like to have a term for things like a rebinned (higher S/N)<br>
<span class="">version of the dataset, or perhaps the data in a different waveband on a<br>
multi-band instrument, or the same observation with a different<br>
</span>instrument setup (as in V500/COMB vs. V1200 in Califa), etc. Essentially:<br>
<span class="">Science data that was obtained "together with" #this but that's not<br>
identical with #this.<br>
<br>
Proposed term(s): #science? (but that's a bit too broad) #alternate?<br>
</span> (as a child of #this?)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>maybe #isVariantFormOf or #isOriginalFormOf</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
(3) I'd like to have a term for a different representation of the same<br>
<span class="">dataset, e.g., a spectrum that was originally a FITS image formatted as<br>
a FITS table, an SDM VOTable, or a CSV file (where of course the SDM<br>
VOTable would be the #this). Essentially, the same data as #this modulo<br>
the different expressivenesses of container formats.<br>
<br>
</span>Proposed term(s): #alt-format? (as a child of #this?)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>#isVariantFormOf or #isOriginalFormOf</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
(4) I'd like to have a term for a previous version of a dataset. I have<br>
that in califa, where I'd like to have *some* way to get DR1 and DR2<br>
data, but I really don't want to clutter all-VO SSA or obscore searches<br>
with these guys. So, I'm adding links to old files (where they exist)<br>
in datalink results for new files. This isn't really #progenitor, since<br>
the old files aren't in the provenance chain of the new files (which are<br>
generated from yet other data files). It's... well, a previous version,<br>
and hence I'd like to see<br>
<br>
Proposed term: #previous-version (as child of #auxiliary?)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>we should be careful with the semantics that DataCite assigns to these but #isPreviousVersionOf and #isNewVersionOf might be appropriate here</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
That concludes the proposed concepts for this time; #fault from the<br>
original proposals I've dropped. One other thing I'd like:<br>
<br>
(5) #proc currently has "Server-side data processing result" as its<br>
<span class="">explanation. What really is in such datalink rows is, I submit,<br>
better described by "reference to a server-side processing service"<br>
-- so, can we change that explanation?<br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No objection here.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>-- Alberto</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
<br>
Opinions? Proposals for sharper descriptions, better terms? Any<br>
contributions are welcome.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Markus<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>[1] <a href="http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/2015-November/002495.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/2015-November/002495.html</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dr. Alberto Accomazzi<br>Principal Investigator</div><div>NASA Astrophysics Data System - <a href="http://ads.harvard.edu" target="_blank">http://ads.harvard.edu</a><br>Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - <a href="http://www.cfa.harvard.edu" target="_blank">http://www.cfa.harvard.edu</a><br>60 Garden St, MS 83, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA</div></div></div>
</div></div>