[Esip-preserve] [Esip-citationguidelines] Distributed Web, identifiers, and stewardship

[Matthew Mayernik]

Thanks Mark for posting the slides. I'm sorry to have missed the
presentation. I have a question related to a specific use case: A random
university researcher/student downloads data either from a data repository
site, or from a peer-to-peer system as described in Kelsey & Rob's slides.

My comment/question for this case is that I'm not sure how the key-based
validation approach would scale beyond repository-to-repository data
exchanges. In other words, I can imagine that repositories with appropriate
knowledge and technology could use this approach to ensure validity of data
exchanges, but I don't think we can expect the typical data user to do
anything complex (or even not complex). It's been an ongoing struggle to
get people to cite data via DOIs, which is a process (citation) that users
are familiar with.

I guess my point is that for the specific use case given above, I think any
algorithmic/computational approach to validation will have to be something
that just happens for users, i don't see how we can expect people to
actively do a validation step themselves.  I could be off base either with
my comment or my use case, so other input is appreciated.

Matt

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:54 AM Parsons, Mark via Esip-citationguidelines <
esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

> hi all,
>
> Sorry for the cross-posting but I thought this relevant to both
> stewardship and the citation cluster.
>
> Kelsey Breseman, the new Stewardship Committee co-chair,  ably supported
> by Rob Brackett,  gave an excellent webinar with an overview of how the
> Distributed Web works and some of the remaining challenges, many of which
> are stewardship related.
>
> Slides are here:
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1R4OXvaMYCG_pGlxRoxJ228OADgV0ZhgKcYEXFFP9Ulk/edit?usp=sharing
> and the presentation was recorded.
>
> The issue of validity stood out to me. I think this is a concern that we
> need to consider more closely in the citation cluster. It has long been
> suggested that one should use both authority-based and content-based
> identifiers to specifically reference an object (Altman 2007), and we have
> seen some of the work that the folks at INREA have done using content-based
> IDs for some software citation concerns and authority-based IDs for other.
> We maight want to consider developing some recommended practice in this
> area. For example, I think key-based addressing could be a helpful way to
> help with provenance tracking and even the impossible issue of
> “scientifically equivalent”. They would also offer technically
> authoritative layers to human identifiers like ORCID.
>
> There are also issues like how to handle data deprecation, granularity,
> redirects, high-volume and high-latency data, etc. Apparently the different
> systems have different approaches to these issues, and it is still early
> days. Ultimately, however, it is reasonable to assume that at least one of
> the distributed web protocols will be added to the stack of protocols we
> already use. It would be good to make sure Earth and environmental science
> stewardship issues are considered in addressing all these issues.
>
> cheers,
>
> -m.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-citationguidelines mailing list
> Esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org
> https://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-citationguidelines
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20191010/16dfefc6/attachment.htm>