Re: DOI and other identifiers

> On 6 May 2016, at 21:02, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 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,

Note that, afaik, assigning DOI-s is not free. An organization (typically a publisher) pays to have the right to issue DOI-s, afaik. I am not sure how this will play with the business model of annotation, except when the annotation (ie, an instance of Hypothes.is <http://hypothes.is/>, for example) runs on the site of such an institution...

> 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.

Absolutely. In the academic world, a DOI is exactly that: it is a canonical identifier for a scholarly work (regardless of the format it is presented and/or downloaded). If, as Dan said, some annotations become scholarly outputs on their own right, hence they get a DOI, then it *is* the canonical identifier for that annotation.


> 
> 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 :)

I fully agree.

> 
> 
> * 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.

+1. This is a social expectation, which we cannot, and should not, have any specific rules for…

Ivan

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


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704