[Esip-preserve] Citations guideline revisions

[Bruce Barkstrom]

One question that I don't think we've addressed is whether having a single
source of redirection will decrease the probability of losing information due
to the loss of multi-site replication.  Going to the multi-identifier approach
would be more consistent with multi-site distribution of locators.

Bruce b.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes at nasa.gov> 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
>