Hi all - The CF Governance Panel discussed DOIs during our last meeting. Mainly
for reasons of greatly simplified future access/maintenance, we believe CF
should use the GitHub/Zenodo integration to create a CF DOI(s). Here is a
summary of the discussion:
> The CF DOI discussion focused on the
My understanding is that the California Digital Libraries (CDL) was of the two
founders of DataCite, and at some point moved/migrated the EZID resources to
DataCite for external users. I access directly through CDL, and @ethanrd
probably access through EZID/DataCite. I also believe that Zenodo
Hi @ zklaus - UCAR/NCAR uses
[DataCite](https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://datacite.org/__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!lAcCqy54Jr1SJwxYr7rY0hvt6q5aW19tbX-YAwjG5B6pSIykDKjyxPnTBRhaeWwRvyzfYl7qRwM$
) for DOI minting service. (I think UC Library uses DataCite as well.
@castelao - Do you know? And,
This looks to be moving in the right direction, thanks @castelao.
I am still a bit unclear on which provider should be chosen and how that choice
should be made.
Zenodo is well-known and documented on
@castelao : thanks, I agree with your approach. Following the theme of keeping
things simple unless there is a clear need, I suggest using your listed fields
plus `Description` for now, and more can be added later if needed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@martinjuckes , thanks for raising this point. I think it is a good idea to
have a description associated with the DOI. To clarify, Zenodo is quite
convenient and I've been a happy user but the price is that we must conform
with their resources. A direct DOI registration provides more fields
@castelao : I like the idea of having a DOI for the CF concept, but I would
like to take this opportunity to clarifying what that concept is. @ethanrd has
suggested, I think, that the concept can be defined, in effect, by pointing to
cfconventions.org, but I feel it would be more in the spirit
Sure, let's break this decision into parts, starting with the high-level ones.
I just reread all posts, and my take is that the essential points are:
- There are some questions about where to register Zenodo (less work) vs
directly through UCAR or UC Library (more freedom);
- How deep we want
Dear @castelao
Do you have time to put forward your suggestion of 4th October 2021 again,
updated if required given the following comments, as a definite proposal? It
would be good to bring this issue to a successful conclusion, given that it's
been running for four years. Thanks to everyone
Thanks for the clarification! If we get version-level DOIs for free from
Zenodo, that's fine, I see no reason to go out of our way to avoid them. That
also means that there are likely to be future solutions for maintaining them,
since there will be a large community of users in the same boat.
Thanks for the concept of the DOI assignment with Zenodo.
The following DOIs make sense for me
(B) for references in Journal Publication - I don't think the versions are
important here
and these could then also be mentioned in the text.
(C) also for Journal Publication
(D) for references from our
Thanks, @JonathanGregory. I only looked in this repository for open issues, so
I missed it.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Dear @zklaus
There is an [open
issue](https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-convention.github.io/issues/182__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!iEjodabCgXX7UCEgD4k7fCnGM1gdzbMeMaLri_x_3tY0RmwDL8v8aErkAkx4GpLMuhQgNNVGX2w$
) in the website/governance repo about the licence which the
And one more thing came up: When publishing on Zenodo one *must* provide a
license and to my own surprise I could not figure out which license CF
conventions are published under. If this is an oversight on my part, please
help me out. If not, this is probably something that deserves its own
To illustrate a possible way of setting this up, I created an upload on the
Zenodo sandbox. It can be found
[here](https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sandbox.zenodo.org/record/932985*.YV7MHiVS_mE__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!i-hKTs37bbN5jZUNQUkHrwwMv88KuWwFZVLsyoxwPUIq-glkRfffYJLz7Bt-70E6SQAfYVZjl4A$
@sethmcg , to be fair, what I suggested was the DOI way of doing it. But even
without the version level DOI, it is possible to have reproducibility if in the
bibliography list the tag version (tagged commit on git) is included. This is a
common solution for datasets, but the downloading date is
PS: Zenodo has [a
Sandbox](https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sandbox.zenodo.org/__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!lTl4qkt9s1UU3YtWoPyy0U-JB_vLtU2FCZm_CIzzSgr6eSFSfXXxsH5CASwd4aeUKYKAi-kBwvk$
) available for experimentation. If there are specific (or unspecific) open
questions around what Zenodo can do or
I really like the approach laid out by @castelao.
A few points are probably worth mentioning/stressing:
DOIs for Versions
This is baked into Zenodo. If you have a look at [the Zenodo FAQ, Section "DOI
I agree that it makes sense to have a top-level DOI for CF, and then
lower-level ones for cf-conventions and the standard names. I think level C is
too granular and complex, and that we would be asking the community to commit
to maintaining a large number of DOIs in perpetuity for
I spoke with a couple of experts on DOIs, and here is my suggestion.
First, some clarifications:
- The DOI handle that we see, something like 10.21238/S8SPRAY1618, is like a
primary key in a database. Associated with that DOI, there are several fields
stored in a public database, such as
Hello,
I'd just like to advertise that discussion of this issue has now been added as
breakout session in next week's online CF meeting
Hi all - I was wrong about the ability to change the URL resolved to by a
Zenodo DOI. It always points to the corresponding Zenodo archive page. Which
makes sense given Zenodo is a repository and not just a DOI minting service.
Hi @castelao - I agree, using the Zenodo/GitHub integration would
It's great to hear that there is interest!
My understanding from the comments is that we agree that CF conventions should
have a DOI and the standard names should also have a DOI. It sounds like a good
idea since the standard names table will probably be updated more frequently
than the
Yes, I would like to see this move forward.
It looks like Zenodo automatically supports having both an overarching CF DOI
and DOIs for each released version (see the [Zenodo
I agree that both the standard name table and the conventions document would
probably need separate DOIs.
We've gotten a DOI for the most recent version of the OceanSITES Data Format
Manual. I believe that implies that we'll have to keep this version available
in perpetuity, since new
I am very interested in it. DOIs for cf documentation and cf-standard name
lists. That would be very helpful especially for the FAIR principles.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I would be interested in this, although I'm not an expert on this topic.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Hi everyone. Is there still interest in moving this forward? Would make sense
to have a breakout room for the CF meeting next month?
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
My understanding is that this DOI would be used as any other reference, which
should be included in the list of references at the end. With a single DOI or
one for each version, the version identification (ex. CF-1.7) would go
explicitly in the bibliographic references section. In my lab, we
Without wanting to belabor this point, since it's clearly been decided, I'd
like to point out that the DOI can in no way replace the description of CF in
the Conventions attribute: 'files that follow these conventions indicate this
by setting the NUG defined global attribute Conventions to the
My
https://orcid.org/-0002-0131-1404
Best wishes
Heinke
--
Heinke Höck
World Data Center for Climate (WDCC)
Abteilung Datenmanagement
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH (DKRZ)
Bundesstraße 45 a • D-20146 Hamburg • Germany
Email:ho...@dkrz.de
URL: www.dkrz.de
Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr.
Great! We need to put some information together to move this forward:
- Are there funding agencies? Which ones?
- Who are the creators? [The list of authors in the main
document](http://cfconventions.org/cf-conventions/cf-conventions.html#_about_the_authors)?
- There are other categories of
Sounds like a thumbs up, @castelao !
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/127#issuecomment-412851042
Creating a single DOI pointing to https://cfconventions.org would be great, I
think, and what was decided at the Reading meeting. We didn't decide to _not_
create further DOIs (e.g. for different conventions versions) simply because we
couldn't decide in the limited time how best to proceed.
Sorry for the delay, I'm back.
Thanks for the correction @ethanrd. Yes, I also recall an agreement for a
single DOI. Although I would recommend using a master DOI with one child DOI
for each release, it is possible to use a single DOI for the CF concept. Thus
it would not be associated to a
As I recall, the decision at the Reading meeting was to mint a DOI for CF in
general rather than for any particular version of any particular document. Is
there a way using Zenodo with GitHub to mint a DOI that isn't associated with a
particular document/artifact/release?
Or, perhaps the
UCSD library could provide that, but they suggested to use Zenodo since it can
be integrated with GitHub, which I confirm that is nearly zero maintenance. My
contact in the library also mentioned that they trust Zenodo due to the solid
institutions that support it.
I canto do the repository
@castelao , thanks for picking this issue up again!
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/127#issuecomment-405543642
I believe that there was an agreement in Reading to create a DOI for the CF
convention documentation. Is that correct? If so, shall we discuss the details
on how to do it?
We have a few options on how to implement it. One of them is using Zenodo as
suggested by @rsignell-usgs , which would
Could we discuss this at the meeting in Reading in June?
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/127#issuecomment-380216568
I just realized that netCDF also has its own DOI as mentioned here:
https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/docs/faq.html#How-should-I-cite-use-of-netCDF-software
It is written (if the URL does not work at some point in the future):
```
The registered Digital Object Identifier for all
I am happy to make something happen!
The DOI server would, I think, keep a copy of the versioned document(s),
thereby decoupling the need for a stable URL.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Sure, everything digital needs upkeep--that's the blessing and the curse.
It's not my area of expertise, so I'm not really qualified to debate this with
an informed point of view. therefore when it comes to best practice for long
term reference and archival, I'll trust what the experts (i.e.
Assuming someone maintains the mapping between DOI and the intended digital
object's current URL.
Otherwise, DOIs become stale unique strings the same as URLs do.
I said I'd stay out of the persistent identifier flame war, but I failed. Maybe
we should use blockchain.
> On Jan 19, 2018, at
OK, looks like I'll be the odd one out here. Let me ask a few questions:
* What will the DOI(s) be used for that the canonical URLs can not?
* What capability do the DOIs have that the canonical URLs do not?
* How will you resolve the duality of two canonical references, one being the
DOI and the
The DOI itself is permanent, the URL that results from dereferencing the DOI
can be changed. The object/concept the DOI identifies should be permanent. What
that object/concept actually represents and the possible versioning of that
object, I believe, is up to those stewarding that object.
I know that on some DOI services (e.g. [https://zenodo.org/]()) you can have a
unique DOI for each release, but also generic DOI that always resolves to the
latest version. I don't know if this feature is ubiquitous, though.
For instance, [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.832255]() resolves to
Another option is to have a single DOI and recommend that users include the
version number when citing CF.
What URL should result when dereferencing a CF DOI? I would think either the
main CF web page or the current CF specification document.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
An excellent idea, I think.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/127#issuecomment-358753375
49 matches
Mail list logo
