This is a bit OT, but it's related to dois ...I'm sure you noticed L Penevs (pensoft) post at taxacom:
Instructions to authors wishing to submit Data Papers based on metadata entered via GBIF’s IPT can be found in the Data Publishing Policies and G uidelineshttp://www.pensoft.net/J_FILES/Pensoft_Data_Publishing_Policies_and_Guidelines.pdfissued by Pensoft.
From this document:
"The well-established norm for citing genetic data is that one simply cited the Genbank identifier (accession number) in the text. Similar usage is also commonplace for items in other bioinformatics databases. Pensoft is not recommending a change in that practice. The following guidelines apply to more heterogeneous research data published in other institutional or subject-specific data repositories, frequently described in related journal articles or Data Papers (see below). They are intended to permit data citations to be treated as ‚first class‘ citation objects, on a par with bibliographic citations, and to enable them to be more easily harvested from reference lists, so that those who have made the effort to publish their research data might more easily be ascribed academic credit for their work through the normal mechanisms of citation recognition. For such data in data repositories, each published data package and each published data file should always be associated with a persistent unique identifier. A Digital Object Identifier (DOI) issued by DataCite should be used wherever possible."
best regards, Robert
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Roderic Page r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk wrote:
Reading this thread makes me despair. It's as if we are determined not to make progress, forever debating identifiers and what they identify, with seemingly little hope of resolution, and no clear vision of what the goals are. We wallow in acronym soup, and enjoy the technical challenges, but don't actually get anywhere (http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2010/04/biodiversity-informatic-fail-and-what.htm... )
Here's one vision of a way forward.
Someone or some entity shows a little vision and courage, and provides a taxonomic classification where every node in the tree gets a DOI.
The nodes in the taxonomic classification are citable objects (hence the DOIs).
Nodes in the classification can be accessed either by DOI or by name-based HTTP URI (multiple nodes for a name bounce to ambiguity resolution pages).
A taxon-name extraction service locates names in text.
We build a taxon name/literature index (which we pretty much have already, albeit distributed and partly proprietary).
Now, when an author (in any field) writes a paper or publishes some data on a taxon they cite the node in the classification as they would any scientific paper. Through CrossRef's citation tracking mechanism, the taxon database automatically accumulates the scientific literature relevant to that taxon.
When a journal publishes an article it calls the name extraction service to make the names clickable, avoiding the need for the journal to create its own taxon pages (a la Pensoft), and automatically building a taxonomic index to the literature. Publishers get enriched content, we get an always up to date taxonomic index.
So, we have services that authors and publishers can use, and use an identifier scheme that publishers understand (and so do some, if not most authors).
But you say "what about RDF and the linked web?". Relax, DOIs are now linked data compliant.
But you say "what about versions?" OK, to a first approximation nobody cares about versions. They really don't. Obviously previous versions will be accessible, but the identifier always points to the most recent version.
But you say "ah but it costs money". Yep, anything worthwhile does. Last time I checked journals costs money, yet we seem to have lots of those.
But you say, "which classification to use?" Does anybody (outside taxonomy) actually care? Classification is a navigational convenience. If you care deeply, you'll make a phylogeny.
But you say, "why DOIs?" Several reasons, 1) publishers and authors understand them, 2) they avoid branding 3) there's an infrastructure underpinning them 4) they show that we are serious
But "what about different taxon concepts?" To a first approximation nobody cares, and for the bulk of life we know too little for there to be much ambiguity. If we do care we can read the literature, which we have conveniently indexed.
Now, there are lots of things we could argue about, but if, say, EOL had done something like this at the start, namely embedded itself in the publication process, and major journals were citing EOL pages and linking to EOL pages, we would have a wonderful tool that was actually useful, way outside our own narrow concerns. Note that I'm using EOL has an example of an organisation with sufficient scope, GBIF would be another candidate.
I suspect a major reason for our continued failure is a the lack of clearly identified users (and I don't mean people who read this list, or TAXACOM), and a failure of ambition.
Anyway, my coffee has arrived. I don't hold out much hope of any of this happening, and I fully expect us to be debating these issues in a year from now. Pity.
Regards
Rod
Roderic Page Professor of Taxonomy Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
Email: r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk Tel: +44 141 330 4778 Fax: +44 141 330 2792 AIM: rodpage1962@aim.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192 Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content