Thread: Digital Object Identifiers for Seismic Networks

Comments on FDSN recommendations for seismic network DOIs and related FDSN
services (14 May 2014):

I support the FDSN recommendation for seismic network DOIs and related FDSN
services with the following 2 exceptions:

1. The FDSN document states the the Publisher should be:
"The institution (or data center) responsible for making
the data, ie the DOI and landing page, permanently available.
This is defined as the entity that holds, archives, publishes,
prints, distributes, releases, issues, or produces the resource.
The publisher should be the organization that mints the DOI".

Based on my reading of the Datacite Metadata Schema 3.0, I disagree that the
"Publisher" should be the organization that mints the DOI. I argue that the
"Resource" for the DOI is the seismic network itself, and NOT the DOI and
landing page.

From the Datacite Metadata schema 3.0:

Publisher: (defined field in Datacite Metadata Schema 3.0)
The name of the entity that holds, archives, publishes,
prints, distributes, releases, issues, or produces the
resource. This property will be used to formuate the
citation, so consider the prominence of this role.

Resources: (defined in Datacite Metadata Schema 3.0 Introduction)
Resource can be files, parts of files, persons, organizations,
abstractions, etc.

Subject: (defined field in Datacite Metadata Schema 3.0)
Subject, keywork, classification, code, or key phrase
describing the resource.

ResourceType: (defined field in Datacite Metadata Schema 3.0)
A description of the resource.

If the FDSN recommends that the "Resource" be "Other/Seismic Network", the
Publisher of the resource should not necessarily be the minter of the DOI.
For a seismic network, the publisher should be the organization that
builds/operates the seismic network, rather than the publisher/minter of the
DOI. If the "Resource" in the Datacite schema is by definition the
DOI/landing page rather that the network, there would be no need for items
such as a "Resource Type" field, and indeed the "ResourceType" would be
something like "DOI/landing page".

2. I don't agree that the FDSN should (even in the future) REQUIRE
that an organization provide a DOI when requesting a network code assigment,
OR have the FDSN automatically create a DOI that the network cannot
manage or control. This should be OPTIONAL, and at the REQUEST of
a network.

The FDSN recommendation document initially states that:
Through this "optional" service, FDSN will offer to mint and
manage the DOI fora network. The DOI will be owned by FDSN and
the network operator will not have full or direct control over the
DOI metadata.

However, it later states:
When requesting a new network code, or updating information
on an existing network that has no registered DOI, the network
operator will be asked (and eventually required) to either
provide a self-minted DOI or elect to have FDSN mint and
manage a DOI for the network.

I recommend that this be wording changed to ensure the FDSN mints a DOI for a
network ONLY at the explicit request of a network.

- Doug Neuhauser, 2014/05/23


On 05/19/2014 01:51 PM, Tim Ahern wrote:

Hello members of FDSN WG III

Several groups in Europe as well as IRIS staff have put considerable effort into identifying a way in which researchers can give proper credit to operators of seismic networks. The attached document is the result of several months of discussions.

We would like to have FDSN WG-III adopt this recommendation for Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for FDSN use. The concept relies on the Network Code but offers two options as to how the DOIs are minted/created. Please read the following recommendation over and either agree that the FDSN should adopt
the proposed DOI usage or not. Please send your comments to the entire group for their consideration.

Please respond by June 9, 2014, three weeks from today. The proposal will take more time than usual to digest but hopefully three weeks is enough time for your consideration. If we have not heard back from you by June 9, we will assume you have no objection to the proposal.

Regards and thanks for your consideration of this proposal

Dr. Tim Ahern
tim<at>iris.washington.edu

Chair of FDSN WG III on
Products, Tools and Services




_______________________________________________
fdsn-wg3-products mailing list
fdsn-wg3-products<at>iris.washington.edu
http://www.iris.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/fdsn-wg3-products

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Neuhauser University of California, Berkeley
doug<at>seismo.berkeley.edu Berkeley Seismological Laboratory
Office: 510-642-0931 215 McCone Hall # 4760
Fax: 510-643-5811 Berkeley, CA 94720-4760
Remote: 530-752-5615 (Wed,Fri)

I support this proposal.

Dr. Peter Davis
Executive Director, Project IDA
University of California, San Diego
http://ida.ucsd.edu/
(o) 858-534-2839
(f) 858-534-6354





On May 19, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Tim Ahern <tim<at>iris.washington.edu> wrote:

Hello members of FDSN WG III

Several groups in Europe as well as IRIS staff have put considerable effort into identifying a way in which researchers can give proper credit to operators of seismic networks. The attached document is the result of several months of discussions.

We would like to have FDSN WG-III adopt this recommendation for Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for FDSN use. The concept relies on the Network Code but offers two options as to how the DOIs are minted/created. Please read the following recommendation over and either agree that the FDSN should adopt
the proposed DOI usage or not. Please send your comments to the entire group for their consideration.

Please respond by June 9, 2014, three weeks from today. The proposal will take more time than usual to digest but hopefully three weeks is enough time for your consideration. If we have not heard back from you by June 9, we will assume you have no objection to the proposal.

Regards and thanks for your consideration of this proposal

Dr. Tim Ahern
tim<at>iris.washington.edu

Chair of FDSN WG III on
Products, Tools and Services



<DOIFDSN.docx>_______________________________________________
fdsn-wg3-products mailing list
fdsn-wg3-products<at>iris.washington.edu
http://www.iris.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/fdsn-wg3-products

Dear all,

first at all, excuses for the late reply. Firstly, we strongly support
the proposal. It is clear that the DOI's are not fully adapted to
seismic networks, but it is the simplest pragmatic solution we can
implement on the short term. And we really need such a tool, at least
for RESIF, as we need to urgently improve the data citation to continue
to ensure funding.


Of course if any parts of the text are not sufficiently clear, we can
accomodate to changes. Concerning the issues that Doug raised:

- On Doug's point 2: We agree that the DOI can be optional at the
present stage. We will in any case have to handle networks without
DOI's, in particular old temporary networks. We hope that the text is
clear that the FDSN should offer minting DOI's as a service, but that
networks can themselves provide the DOI (for French networks it would
probably be done by INIST, a French organisation). If the text is not
sufficiently clear, it is probably best that a native English speaker
has a look at the formulation, rather than the RESIF team.

- On Doug's point 1: We have looked through the various exemples on
datacite. To take the example of an article: the publisher is indeed the
editor, even though the content is produced by the author. We are
therefore happy with the suggestion that for networks, the publisher
would be the organisation minting the doi, while the owner of the data
would remain the network/responsible organisations.


Best regards,

Helle Pedersen
RESIF Director

Le 19/05/2014 22:51, Tim Ahern a écrit :

Hello members of FDSN WG III

Several groups in Europe as well as IRIS staff have put considerable effort into identifying a way in which researchers can give proper credit to operators of seismic networks. The attached document is the result of several months of discussions.

We would like to have FDSN WG-III adopt this recommendation for Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for FDSN use. The concept relies on the Network Code but offers two options as to how the DOIs are minted/created. Please read the following recommendation over and either agree that the FDSN should adopt
the proposed DOI usage or not. Please send your comments to the entire group for their consideration.

Please respond by June 9, 2014, three weeks from today. The proposal will take more time than usual to digest but hopefully three weeks is enough time for your consideration. If we have not heard back from you by June 9, we will assume you have no objection to the proposal.

Regards and thanks for your consideration of this proposal

Dr. Tim Ahern
tim<at>iris.washington.edu

Chair of FDSN WG III on
Products, Tools and Services





_______________________________________________
fdsn-wg3-products mailing list
fdsn-wg3-products<at>iris.washington.edu
http://www.iris.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/fdsn-wg3-products

--
Helle Pedersen

Directrice de RESIF
Déléguée Scientifique au CNRS-INSU

ISTERRE
Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble
BP 53
F-38041 Grenoble Cedex
FRANCE
Tel +33 (0)4 76 63 52 59
Fax +33 (0)4 76 63 52 01

*********************************
ATTENTION:
Mon ancien adresse email n'est plus valable.
Merci d'utiliser Helle.Pedersen<at>ujf-grenoble.fr
Merci de supprimer l'adresse contenant 'obs.ujf-grenoble.fr' de vos adresse collectés.

My old email address is no longer valid.
Please use Helle.Pedersen<at>ujf-grenoble.fr
Please delete the addresses with 'obs.ujf-grenoble.fr' from your collected addresses.
*********************************