<div dir="ltr">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.)<div><br></div><div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div><div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">-Anne.</div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 9:10 AM gilles landais <<a href="mailto:gilles.landais@astro.unistra.fr">gilles.landais@astro.unistra.fr</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Hi everyone,</p>
<p>"references" was a VizieR proposal to replace the deprecated ivoa
term "related-to" (eg:
<a href="https://cds.unistra.fr/registry/?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=ivo_vor&identifier=ivo://cds.vizier/J/AJ/161/36" target="_blank">https://cds.unistra.fr/registry/?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=ivo_vor&identifier=ivo://cds.vizier/J/AJ/161/36</a>).<br>
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).<br>
<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
(Note that this VizieR list is provided only in its VO registry
record but not in its DOI metadata)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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".<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>(Note: In fact, I don't like "Cites" because in DataCite API
"Cites" relation increases the datacite statistics (curl
<a href="https://api.datacite.org/dois/" target="_blank">https://api.datacite.org/dois/</a>{DOI}))</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thank for your advises,<br>
</p>
<p>with best,<br>
Gilles Landais (CDS)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>Le 05/03/2024 à 14:15, Henneken, Edwin
via registry a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">I agree with Anne. In their Metadata
Schema 4.5 document, DataCite uses pretty much the same
language for "References" as proposed here</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">DataCite Definition: indicates B is
used as a source of information for A<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">URL: <a href="https://datacite-metadata-schema.readthedocs.io/en/4.5/appendices/appendix-1/relationType/#references" target="_blank">https://datacite-metadata-schema.readthedocs.io/en/4.5/appendices/appendix-1/relationType/#references</a></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">So, yes, you could use it for
"cited-reference" if you wish.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">DataCite provides a nice page on the
use of the relationship types Cited, IsCitedBy, References and
IsReferenceBy:</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><a href="https://support.datacite.org/docs/contributing-citations-and-references" target="_blank">https://support.datacite.org/docs/contributing-citations-and-references</a><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">But, due to its more general nature,
I think using "Cited" is to be preferred over "References"
when the relationship is for a <span>"citation-reference". </span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><span>From the ADS point of view, if
we get metadata for a work to be indexed and it has a </span><span>RelatedIdentifier
section, we don't want to be guessing what the precise
meaning/role of a specific </span><span>relationType is;
different values for </span><span>relationType result in
different actions within the ADS indexing workflow.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">All the best</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Edwin</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><span><b>Edwin Henneken </b></span><span>(he
| him | his)</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>NASA Astrophysics Data System</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>Center for Astrophysics | Harvard
& Smithsonian</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>60 Garden Street | MS 83 |
Cambridge, MA 02138</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span><img width="350" height="2"></span><span><br>
</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span><a href="http://ads.harvard.edu/" target="_blank">ads.harvard.edu</a></span><span>
| <a href="https://twitter.com/adsabs" target="_blank">@adsabs</a>
| <u><a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/" target="_blank">ui.adsabs.harvard.edu</a></u></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span><u><a href="https://cfa.harvard.edu/" target="_blank">cfa.harvard.edu</a></u>
| </span><a href="http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook" target="_blank"><span>Facebook</span></a><span>
| </span><a href="http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter" target="_blank"><span>Twitter</span></a><span>
| </span><a href="http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube" target="_blank"><span>YouTube</span></a><span>
| </span><a href="http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter" target="_blank"><span>Newsletter</span></a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 7:00 AM
Anne Catherine Raugh via semantics <<a href="mailto:semantics@ivoa.net" target="_blank">semantics@ivoa.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>"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).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">-Anne.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at
3:39 AM Markus Demleitner via semantics <<a href="mailto:semantics@ivoa.net" target="_blank">semantics@ivoa.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">Dear Semantics, dear
Registry,<br>
<br>
We have a new VEP on the Registry's vocabulary of
relationship types,<br>
VEP-015: <a href="https://github.com/ivoa-std/VEPs/blob/main/VEP-015.txt" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ivoa-std/VEPs/blob/main/VEP-015.txt</a>.<br>
<br>
Here is its text:<br>
<br>
Vocabulary: <a href="http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/voresource/relationship_type" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/voresource/relationship_type</a><br>
Author: <a href="mailto:gilles.landais@unistra.fr" target="_blank">gilles.landais@unistra.fr</a><br>
Date: 2022-12-15<br>
<br>
New Term: References<br>
Action: Addition<br>
Label: references<br>
Description: This resource used the related resource as
a source of information.<br>
<br>
Used-in: The registry record ivo://<a href="http://edu.gavo.org/hd/gavo_addpms" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">edu.gavo.org/hd/gavo_addpms</a>
(and most<br>
other IVOA document records; cf.<br>
<<a href="http://dc.zah.uni-heidelberg.de/wirr/q/ui/fixed?field0=restype&operator0=%3D&operand0=doc%3Adocument" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dc.zah.uni-heidelberg.de/wirr/q/ui/fixed?field0=restype&operator0=%3D&operand0=doc%3Adocument</a>>)<br>
<br>
Rationale: This term is proposed to replace the
deprecated term "related-to"<br>
in the registry relationships. In VizieR, "related-to"
refers VO resources<br>
which are linked by their biliographic references.<br>
<br>
For instance, a VizieR catalogue V is attached to a
bibliographic reference.<br>
This article includes in the section "References"
citations to other<br>
articles A1, A2, ... some of them have a VizieR
catalogue V1,V2,...<br>
The proposed relation makes the relation between V and
V1,V2,...<br>
<br>
"References" is a term used in DataCite schema.<br>
<br>
Do the WGs have opinions on this? I'd suggest comments
should be<br>
addressed to the Registry mailing list.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Markus<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>