[Esip-citationguidelines] Next steps in the citation of research things*

[Parsons, Mark]

Hey team,

Thanks for a great working session at ESIP Winter Meeting<https://2020esipwintermeeting.sched.com/event/XriC/research-object-citation-cluster-working-session>. We had good, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic participation, especially for the last session of the meeting. In some areas, I think we brought more clarity. In others, we opened more questions. (The more you learn, the less you know). Great progress in an exploratory activity.

As to next steps, I encourage all the breakout leads to make refinements and notes to what they edited in the spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VEYPLgTsCR_zbMUbThonBrqaYqBiMT4e525NzFi7ql8/edit#gid=1494916301>  We can then determine where we want to go. I think we have multiple options, but I like the group-defined methodology we’ve been using so far. It wanders but reveals insight.

So at our next call, I ask all the breakout session leads to discuss their results, and then we can have a discussion of what’s next.

A couple ideas spring to mind:
- do the same exercise with a different broad use case (e.g credit)
- assess if there are patterns that allow us to develop guidance for a set of research things*

What do you all think?

Our next call is Thursday, 16 Jan. 12:00 EST (17:00 UTC)
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/429077789

I look forward to talking soon.

cheers,

-m.


---
*The term “Research Object” is developing a formal definition in some areas or data science and stewardship (See work by Bechoffer, Goble, and others, notably researchobject.org<http://researchobject.org>). We create confusion by using the term in our very generalized sense. We need a new term or phrasing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-citationguidelines/attachments/20200111/4eb55a74/attachment.htm>