DOI and other identifiers


On the call today we briefly discussed the use of other identifiers for
annotations, such as DOIs.

While there's no problem assigning a DOI to an Annotation, assuming that
CrossRef or some other registration agency is willing to manage the
potential drastic increase in registrations, there are some questions it
brings up for the working group.

* Is the DOI the canonical identifier for the Annotation?

If it isn't, then why mint one at all? To me, it defeats the purpose to
have a DOI if it's not the canonical identifier for the resource.  The
value of DOIs is when the publisher of the content changes, the citations
and references remain the same.

If it isn't, should we have a place in the model to capture it?  Currently
there's only the URI of the current location (id), the canonical URI
(canonical) and the URIs of other locations from where the current
representation was derived (via).  As the annotation would be new, it's
neither id nor via.
I agree with Doug that non canonical aliases are best served via an
extension, and would resist adding in an 'alternate' field to the core
model, as it serves almost no purpose -- if you have the annotation JSON
description to read the alternate field, then why do you need to know where
else you can get the same JSON from?

>From my perspective, no change is needed, but it would be good to discuss :)

* There was also some discussion around versioning.  From the DOI FAQ:

  7. If I have assigned a DOI name and I make a change to my material,
should I assign a new DOI?

The IDF does not have any rules on this. Individual RAs adopt appropriate
rules for their community and application. As a general rule, if the change
is substantial and/or it is necessary to identify both the original and the
changed material, assign a new DOI name.


Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049

Received on Friday, 6 May 2016 21:47:50 UTC