Re: DOI and other identifiers

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
wrote:

> This is all correct with regard to Crossref DOIs, which are the
> overwhelming majority of DOIs currently issued, and which are the ones Ivan
> is describing. I agree 100% with his comments wrt _*Crossref*_ DOIs,
> which are essential and ubiquitous for scholarly literature.
>
>
>
> But there are many other Registration Agencies (RAs), each of which
> registers DOIs for a specific purpose and each of which associates specific
> metadata with the DOIs it registers and manages. For example, EIDR is an
> entertainment industry DOI. DataCite is used for data sets, as you might
> guess. Different DOIs. Different metadata. It is not uncommon for Crossref
> DOIs to be linked to the DataCite DOI of the data set on which the research
> they're talking about is based, and vice-versa. Good stuff.
>
>
>
> More relevant to this discussion, and as another example, the EU
> Publications Office is a Registration Agency for official publications of
> the European Union. There are thousands of them every year, because they
> cover any publication of any official agency within any of the countries of
> the EU. Tons. So yes, there's a cost for them to maintain the registry and
> issue the DOIs; that's a cost of doing business for the Publications Office
> of the European Union based in Luxembourg. But they don't charge for the
> DOIs. All such publications have to get sent to them, and all of them get
> DOIs. And they all have metadata associated with them—in fact, apropos a
> separate but related discussion about subject taxonomies, they are actually
> catalogued using the EuroVoc vocabulary by professional cataloguers. No
> cost to the publishing agency; it's considered essential to the management
> of the EU's publications (and is a Very Good Thing, imo). Those
> publications could _*also*_ get Crossref DOIs. Some of them do.
>
>
>
> I happen to be seeing Dan Whaley in a couple of days—I recruited him as a
> speaker for the IDPF DigiCon conference in Chicago. So Dan, be forewarned
> that I may accost you with a question about whether hypothes.is—or the
> Annotating All Knowledge project—would consider becoming an RA. It would
> actually not be a huge (I mean _*yuge_)* stretch to do that (unless, wrt
> the latter project, it was deemed more appropriate for Crossref to take
> that on—they're one of the partners in that initiative) .
>

Go ahead and ask. :)

However, I probably don't know enough to answer that question.  I'm very
new to this issue and completely uninformed about nearly every aspect of
it!  I'll try to do some background reading.


>
> But in the context of this discussion, I would _*not*_ advocate that any
> such RA or any specific DOI issued by such an RA should be considered
> canonical at this time by this WG. Such an Annotations RA, and the metadata
> they require to maintain the registry of annotations associated with the
> DOIs they issue, is a _*service*_ they would be providing. There would be
> at least two or three gazillion annotations for which such a registration
> would not be appropriate or practical.
>
>
>
> --Bill Kasdorf
>
>
>
> *From:* Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 07, 2016 2:46 AM
> *To:* Robert Sanderson
> *Cc:* W3C Public Annotation List
> *Subject:* 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
>
>
>
>