[Esip-preserve] Citations guideline revisions

Wed Aug 10 11:32:18 EDT 2011

Thanks Kathy.

Thanks for your feedback. I'm excited you are going to be stringent on this issue as a special editor. I hope you can also keep this issue alive with the GEOSS STC.

I think I have addressed your comments, primarily by combining the intro and executive summary and removing the offending sentence.

Regarding  the next steps, review, etc. I think that would be a good topic for today's Cluster telecon.

Cheers,

-m. 

p.s. After ESIP, my family and I had a good time at the Chuck Jones gallery in Santa Fe. Although we didn't get anything as hip as a dot and line sketch, we did update our version of the Grinch Who Stole Christmas video (dir. C. Jones)--a Parsons family tradition.

On 1 Aug 2011, at 8:57 AM, Fontaine, Kathleen S. (GSFC-6102) wrote:

> I like this - couple of notes.
> 
> First.....go through the executive summary and make sure that the labels
> of the core elements match the table of contents hot-linked above.
> Several of the elements have different wording.
> 
> Second....This sentence in the executive summary  "The Digital Object
> Identifier is currently the most broadly adopted
> service for persistently identifying and locating whole data collections
> (as opposed to individual files or granules), although other
> identifier/locator services, such as ARKs and Handles, could be used."
> does not make sense.  The two phrases on either side of the comma are not
> parallel; the first part says broad adoption seems to be the driver for
> selection, while the second part seems to suggest that persistence without
> broad adoption might be ok, too.  So which is it?
> 
> I would have thought that the main criterion would have been persistence,
> regardless of broadness of adoption.  This sentence "This approach when
> coupled with good version tracking, comprehensive
> documentation, and due diligence on the part of data stewards can
> provide a useful and precise citation for the great majority of Earth
> science data most of the time." implies that persistence and all that goes
> along with it (all the care and feeding of the data set) is the more
> important criterion than broad use.
> 
> That being said, however, I would take out that entire sentence, and
> define it in the appropriate section.  We do not offer examples of the
> other required core elements......  The explanation in 3.1.6 makes the
> whole topic more clear, and so I'd just leave out the qualifier altogether.
> 
> Third....At some point, as with any guideline, it will need to be reviewed
> periodically.  Is it worth putting in words to the effect that once this
> is agreed, the next steps are.... [pilot/prototype/test the citation
> guidelines, apply lessons learned, revise....]?
> 
> GREAT WORK, you guys!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> K
> 
> 
> ---------
> Kathy Fontaine
> GOES-R GS GEOSS Liaison
> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
> Code 417/Bldg 6 S241D
> Greenbelt, MD 20771
> 
> Cell:  +1-301-408-8937
> Office: +1-301-286-8161
> Fax:  +1-301-286-1947
> 
> kathy.fontaine at nasa.gov
> kathy.fontaine at noaa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/25/11 1:02 PM, "Moses, John F. (GSFC-5860)" <john.f.moses at nasa.gov>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> Thanks for the 'still stands' assertion.  Still proceeding with a
>> description of the work for NASA to sponsor a DOI process...
>> 
>> John F Moses
>> EOSDIS Science Operations, ESDIS Project Code 423
>> BLD 32, E208B
>> Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771
>> voice at GSFC   (301)614-5308
>> fax at GSFC   (301)614-5267
>> Email              john.f.moses at nasa.gov
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: esip-preserve-bounces at lists.esipfed.org
>> [mailto:esip-preserve-bounces at lists.esipfed.org] On Behalf Of Mark A.
>> Parsons
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:27 PM
>> To: Ruth Duerr
>> Cc: esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
>> Subject: Re: [Esip-preserve] Citations guideline revisions
>> 
>> I sorta agree with Ruth. At one level any reasonably persistent locator
>> would work, but the statement "The most broadly accepted locator in the
>> scientific publishing world is the Digital Object Identifier (DOI)" still
>> stands. For data citations to be accepted by journals authors and data
>> centers will have better luck with the DOI. The ARK might be a second
>> choice.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> -m. 
>> On 25 Jul 2011, at 10:14 AM, Ruth Duerr wrote:
>> 
>>> I am not convinced that DOIs, ARKs, and Handles can be recommended
>>> equally - I also don't understand why if we are adding identifiers to a
>>> list, PURLs, etc. have been left off, since if you are broadening the
>>> field to include other identifiers any of the URL-based locators could
>>> work.
>>> 
>>> Aside from that, I do think an argument can be made for DOIs and ARKs
>>> to be recommended more strongly than Handles.  The issue is that
>>> Thomson-Reuters is working with the DataCite folks to include both DOIs
>>> and ARKs in their citation indexes, Web of Knowledge, and Web of
>>> Science.  I haven't heard that any group is doing the same for Handles -
>>> does anyone have knowledge about other efforts to include identifiers in
>>> citation indexes?  I think having use of your data show up in citation
>>> indexes is important and I would hesitate to recommend any identifier
>>> that didn't get included.
>>> 
>>> Ruth
>>> 
>>> On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Bob (and Mark) recently made a number of very good revisions to
>>>> the Citations provider guidelines:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Interagency_Data_Stewardship/Citations
>>>> /provider_guidelines
>>>> 
>>>> In particular, Bob added reference to ARKs and Handles in addition to
>>>> DOIs.  I think those additions are warranted and helpful in most
>>>> places, based on our discussions of ARKs and Handles.
>>>> 
>>>> One place I think we perhaps need some additional discussion is in the
>>>> "cluster recommendation" part:
>>>> 
>>>> Old:
>>>> 
>>>> The most broadly accepted locator in the scientific publishing world
>>>> is the Digital Object Identifier (DOI). The Cluster recommends the use
>>>> of DOIs to persistently locate full data sets or collections. Other
>>>> locators and identifiers may be more appropriate at the record level.
>>>> 
>>>> New:
>>>> 
>>>> The most broadly accepted locators in the scientific publishing world
>>>> are the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), the Archival Resource Key
>>>> (ARK), and Handles. The Cluster recommends the use of DOIs, ARKs, or
>>>> Handles to persistently locate full data sets or collections. Other
>>>> locators and identifiers may be more appropriate for locating
>>>> individual records or files.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Are we, as a cluster, now recommending DOIs, ARKs, or Handles equally?
>>>> 
>>>> Curt
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Esip-preserve mailing list
>>>> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
>>>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Esip-preserve mailing list
>>> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
>>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esip-preserve mailing list
>> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esip-preserve mailing list
>> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve