[rfc-i] DOIs redux

On 8/25/16 4:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 26/08/2016 08:51, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>> There is a portion of the DOI agreement that says we SHOULD include
>> DOIs for other references, when possible.
>> 
>> RFC 7669:
>> 
>> 4.4.  Use of DOIs in RFCs
>> 
>> The DOI agency requests that documents that are assigned DOIs in
>> turn include DOIs when possible when referring to other
>> organizations' documents.
>> 
>> It?s a self-preservation issue: the more you make them visible, the
>> more often they get used.
> 
> Fair enough. But "requests" surely doesn't translate to a SHOULD in
> the IETF sense? It's more like a nice to have. Over on xml2rfc this
> was described as an RFC Editor duty, which I don't think is
> justified.

Actually, it is indeed a requirement from Crossref to link references to
DOIs. From the Crossref membership rules:

"6. Members have an obligation to link references in the journal
articles they deposit via Crossref. The Membership Agreement states that
a Member has an obligation to actively maximize and maintain its own
Cross-Linking to other members of PILA or other qualified users of the
PILA System. Members who have not informed Crossref within 18 months of
joining that they have instituted outbound linking will have their
accounts suspended. Members are encouraged to link references in other
content types for which DOIs are deposited but are not currently
required to do so." -- http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/59pub_rules.html

(FYI: PILA stands for the Publishers International Linking Association,
the organization that runs Crossref)

> 
>> I could see having a real-time bibxml conversion tool. That is, a
>> reference to http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml-doi/DOI#
>> would reach out to the appropriate place and return the
>> bibxml-formatted reference entry for the given DOI. The tool that
>> Carsten Borman created might be a useful start to this.
>> 
>> But it does require that the DOI database being referenced actually
>> have good data that can be converted.
> 
> Exactly. And until proof of the contrary, that doesn't exist, so
> automating this is a mug's game IMHO. In any case: before people
> charge off and start implementing, we need clear guidance from the
> RSE (imnsho).

In getting DOIs for RFCs, we must in turn use the DOIs that exist for
other documents. How we do that, whether it is manual entries or a
conversion tool that queries the Crossref database, is entirely up to us.

Is that what you wanted to know?
-Heather

> 
> Brian
> 
>> 
>> Tony Hansen
>> 
>> On 8/25/16, 4:06 PM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Brian E Carpenter"
>> <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of
>> brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> There's a ticket open for xml2rfc that starts:
>> 
>>> Because RFCs now have DOI numbers, the reference sections in RFCs
>>> are now supposed to include DOIs for all references for which
>>> they have been assigned...
>> 
>> I don't see why that follows. Has the RFC Editor actually got a
>> policy on this?
>> 
>> It isn't a trivial requirement to support this automatically in
>> xml2rfc (or to insert manually, for that matter).
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing
> list rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 